Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 ARK 227 - Womack v. Horton

Womack v. Horton’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2010

10 state decisions

401984199020002010decided

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 Stocker v. Hall · Gatlin Ex Rel. Gatlin v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. · Barnett Restaurant Supply, Inc. v. Vance · White River Limestone Products Co. v. Mo.-Pac. Rd. · WHITE RIVER LIME. PROD. CO. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) Request for Admission. A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request.... Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The policy of this court through the years has been to require compliance with the rule governing responses to requests for admissions. Barnett Restaurant Supply, Inc. v. Vance, 279 Ark, 222, 650 S.W.2d 568 (1983), citing Stocker v. Hall, 269 Ark. 468 , 602 S.W.2d 662 (1980); White River Limestone Products Co. v. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co., 228 Ark. 697 , 310 S.W.2d 3 (1958). If the responses are not on time or are faulty for some other reason, such as not being signed by the parties or being inadequate and deficient, this court has made it a practice of deeming the requests to be admitted. Stocker v. Hall, 269 Ark. 468 , 602 S.W.2d 662 (1980).”
    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.