Norris v. Wilkens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. ““The doctrine seems to be well established that, where a litigant chooses between two or more different and coexisting modes of procedure allowed by law on the same state of facts, an election of a remedy results (9 R.C.L. p. 956, § 1), and when, as the result of action taken, an advantage is gained or a detriment occasioned, the litigant is estopped to pursue any other coexisting mode of procedure (9 R.C.L. p. 960, § 7; Jirou v. Jirou, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 493, 498 ; Johnson [Brinkman Commission] Co. v. Missouri-Pacific Ry. Co., 126 Mo. 344 , 28 S.W. 870, 872 , 26 L.R.A. 840 , 47 Am.St.Rep. 675 ; Register v. Carmichael, 169 Ala. 588 , 53 So. 799 , 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 309, and notes). “By suing out the writ of sequestration, plaintiffs secured protection against possible loss from an injury to or waste of the premises pending the determination of the suit, and conversely, appellant was occasioned a detriment, in that, in order to prevent being ejected, he was forced to re-plevy. “Plaintiffs could have pursued either of the coexisting provisional remedies of having the property sequestrated (article 6840, § 3, Revised Statutes 1925), or could have had the same placed in the hands of a receiver (article 2293, § 2, Revised Statutes 1925), but, as these alternative statutory remedies are inconsistent with each other and not cumulative, when plaintiffs made choice of. the procedure by sequestration, the remedy of receivership was no longer available (9 R.C.L., p. 958, § 3).”-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kingsbery v. Phillips Petroleum Company

2. ““The doctrine seems to be well established that, where a litigant chooses between two or more different and coexisting modes of procedure allowed by law on the same state of facts, an election of a remedy results (9 R.C.L. p. 956, § 1), and when, as the result of action taken, an advantage is gained or a detriment occasioned, the litigant is estopped to pursue any other coexisting mode of procedure.” (Citing cases.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas Bank & Trust Co. of Dallas v. Custom Leasing, Inc.