Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 SW 620 - De Proy v. Progakis

De Proy v. Progakis’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
January 1980
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 1980

12 state decisions

701923193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Kimball · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hudson · Fuqua, Hinkle & Davis v. Pabst Brewing Co. · Wallis, Landes & Co. v. Stuart · Wilson v. Johnson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It further appearing to the court that the defendant, August Deproy, is a minor under the age of 21 years; that necessity exists for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the court appointed - Bennett to act as guardian ad litem for said minor in the trial of this cause, and who did so appear and represent said minor on the trial hereof.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.