Thomas N. Muchard v. Theodore W. Berenson’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.2d 368 · 1962
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2000
11 federal appellate · 3 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 Hoffman v. Blaski · State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co v. Duel · Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp. · Ex parte Blaski · 185 F. Supp. 48 - Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contract of employment forming the basis of the action was alleged to have been made in 1953 and modified in 1954. Three of the individual defendants . . . were served with process by service on the Secretary of State of Texas pursuant to Art. 2031b Vernon’s Ann. Texas Civil Statutes which became effective on August 10, 1959. Judge Ingraham in Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp., S.D.Tex., 1960, 185 F.Supp. 48, 51 , held that Article 2031b was remedial and should be given a retroactive effect. That part of Judge Ingraham’s decision was upheld by this Court on appeal. Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp., 5 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 69, 72 . Judge Garza has, however, had strong convictions that Article 2031b does not apply retroactively to a claim arising pri- or to the enactment and effective date of the statute. Rozell v. Kaye, S.D.Texas, 1961, 197 F.Supp. 733 ; second opinion 1962, 201 F.Supp. 377 . In the absence of some authoritative decision of the Supreme Court of Texas on the question, we adhere to the ruling in Lone Star Motor Import, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp., supra, and hold that the substitute service on the three defendants was authorized. 307 F.2d at 370 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is ... the general rule that res judicata is no defense where between the time of the first judgment and the second there has been an intervening decision or a change in the law creating an altered situation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.