Neal v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Raymond v. Raymond (2001), Conner v. Simes (2003)
34 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 McKenzie v. Burris · State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Nelson · Neal v. Wilson · Bridges v. Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., Inc. · United Southern Assurance Co. v. Beard
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In conclusion we touch on respondent’s brief mention that Judge Neal is a necessary party to the request for certiorari proceeding. He cites no legal authority and even fails to cite or argue ARCP Rule 19, Arkansas’s rule concerning the joinder of persons needed for a just adjudication. We have held that, absent convincing argument or citation of authority, we decline to address the response or argument to a petition for certiorari. We would simply state that neither Judge Neal nor Judge Lineberger has an interest related to the subject of this action between petitioner and respondent, and those judges’ presence, as parties, has nothing to do with whether complete relief can be accorded in this case. Cf. Bridges v. Arkansas Motor Coaches Limited, Inc., 256 Ark. 1054 , 511 S.W.2d 651 (1974); McKenzie v. Burris, 255 Ark. 330 , 500 S.W.2d 357 (1973); State v. Nelson, Berry Pet. Co., 246 Ark. 210 , 438 S.W.2d 33 (1969)(where petitions for writs of certiorari actions were decided by the court without trial judges being joined as parties). We would also point our that Judge Neal has never requested to oe a party to this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is the parties’ or trial court’s responsibility to apprise this court as to whether an assignment is necessary under Act 496. Once that assignment is made, that responsibility continues. Clearly, it is not this court’s task, on its own volition, to discover or monitor whether the circumstances have changed to warrant the termination of an assignment or reassignment. On this record, appellant’s first assignment of error fails.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Childs v. Adams“Nonetheless, respondent waited three months before requesting Judge Lineberger to recuse, and when respondent's request was denied, he never petitioned this court that Judge Lineberger's assignment was improper and lacked jurisdiction.”
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.