Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 SW2D 897 - Chandler v. Warlick

Chandler v. Warlick’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 1962
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Watkins v. Junker · Woodward v. Ortiz · Hermann v. Allen · Chandler v. Welborn · Hines v. Foreman

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

  1. ““The proposition is that the necessary legal effect of a final judgment is to determine finally a cause of action set up in the pleadings and pending for decision in the cause when the judgment is pronounced, unless, indeed, the court exclude it from the scope of its action and this whether the judgment result from actual decision or oversight of the court.” (Emphasis ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A certified copy of this judgment shall be filed with the County Clerk of Taylor County where said estate is pending within the time provided for by law and entered upon the claim docket and shall be classified by the County Judge.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““And it is settled that only evidence which tends to support a judgment or a finding of fact may be considered, and all evidence favorable to the opposite contention should be disregarded.” 3-B Tex.Jur. Sec. 935.”
    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.