Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 SO2D 909 - Rappeport v. Patten

Rappeport v. Patten’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 1980
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1980

7 state decisions

3019411950196019701980decided

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 Succession of Simmons · Texana Oil & Refining Co. v. Belchic · First Nat. Bank v. Hinton · First Nat. Bank of Shreveport v. Pierson

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

  1. ““ ‘The party who seeks to avail himself of a change of domicile bears the burden of proving it. So long as any reasonable doubt remains, the presumption is that it has not been changed. The domicile of origin continues until another is acquired, animo et facto.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The law now is that the intention to acquire a permanent residence in the state combined with the fact of residence, even for a short period, fixes the domicile here, and renders one's property not subject to attachment on the ground of non-residence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “was still Kennard, Texas, at the time of the issuance of the writ. It takes more than a mere temporary residence for a person to acquire a domicile in this State. The trial judge fell into error in deciding the case on the theory that the defendant was a resident of this State. The burden of proof was on the defendant to establish by convincing and a preponderance of evidence an abandonment of his Texas domicile prior to the issuance of the attachment. This burden of proof has not been discharged. Act No. 220 of 1932 provides that”
    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.