Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 SW2D 873 - Rush v. Smitherman

Rush v. Smitherman’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
9
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Phil Phillips Ford, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (1971), Motor Credit Corporation v. Woolverton (1957)

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

12019561960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mundy v. Pirie-Slaughter Motor Co. · Pioneer Mutual Compensation Corp. v. Diaz · McKinney v. Croan · Guinn v. Lokey · Bank of Atlanta v. Fretz

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

  1. ““So, despite the failure to transfer the certificate and the Act’s declaration that the non-transfer will render the sale void, as between the parties and when the purposes of the Act are not defeated, the sale is valid. Pioneer Mut. Compensation Co. v. Diaz, 142 Tex. 184 , 177 S.W.2d 202 ; Knops v. Ordorica, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 454 ; Manning v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 206 S.W.2d 165 . The failure to deliver the certificate does not destroy one’s rights and ownership in a vehicle in many other situations. See Guinn v. Lokey, 151 Tex. 260 , 249 S.W.2d 185 ; Pacific Finance Corp. v. Crouch, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W.2d 432 ; Elder Chevrolet Co. v. Bailey County Motor Co., Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 938 .” ****** “We conclude that the seller delivered the control and possession of the vehicle to Munoz, and accepted part payment on the agreed purchase price. The seller retained the naked legal title so long as the certificate was not transferred. * * * As between seller and purchaser, when the accident occurred, the Seller had no right to possess or control the car.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Adhering to the declared purposes announced by Section 1 of the law itself, and even in the face of the express statement of Sections 33 and 53, that all sales without the transfer of the certificate shall be void, many cases have recognized the validity of sales between the parties, though no transfer was made. * * * So, despite the failure to transfer the certificate and the Act's declaration that the nontransfer will render the sale void, as between the parties and when the purposes of the Act are not defeated, the sale is valid.”
    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.