Jacobson v. Berwick’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 1967 · most notably Texas Highway Department v. Jarrell (1967), Meredith v. McClendon (1938)
25 state decisions
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 Ricker, Lee & Co. v. Shoemaker · Austin v. William Cameron & Co. · Old v. Clark · Gottlieb v. Dismukes · First Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Childs
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule seems to be well settled that the controverting affidavit is not sufficient unless it alleges specifically the facts relied upon to confer jurisdiction of the . cause in the court where the suit is filed. The law, article 2007 (1903), says: ‘If the plaintiff desire's to controvert the plea of privilege, he shall within five days after appearance day file a controverting plea under oath, setting out specifically the foot or foots relied upon to confer venae of such eaMse on the court where the cause is pending.’ (Italics ours.) This requires that the controverting affidavit shall itself contain allegations of the facts which are claimed to confer jurisdiction on the court where the suit is filed, or, at the very least, to refer to and make a part of the controverting plea the petition in which the allegations are made, or attach the petition to the controverting plea as an exhibit with reference thereto for that purpose. Penix v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 718 ; Murphy v. Dabney (Tex. Civ. App.) 208 S. W. 984 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shelton v. Thomas““The rule is well settled that the party controverting the plea must allege and prove the facts necessary to clearly bring him within the exception claimed. No sort of allegations are to be found in the controverting plea showing an act on the part of appellant constituting trespass within the meaning of the statute, article 1995 (1830), Revised Statutes 1925, subd. 9. This would clearly render the controverting affidavit insufficient, but we will say that, in our opinion, if the allegations in the petition, which was not in any manner referred to as a part of the controverting affidavit nor attached thereto as an exhibit to be considered in connection therewith, are considered, we do not believe that they show any such act on the part of appellant as would, under the law, constitute trespass.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Idar v. Alaniz
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.