Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 SW3D 251 - Flack v. Hanke

Flack v. Hanke’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 166th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda · Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett · Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Knott · Carr v. Brasher

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

  1. “Section 33.004(e) creates the potential to revive otherwise barred claims against a designated RTP. This procedure may result in the plaintiff collaborating with a defendant to join additional tortfea-sors. For example, section 33.004(e) allows a plaintiff to sue a defendant with little or no liability, and that defendant may then designate the true tortfeasor as an RTP. The plaintiff subsequently may join the true tortfeasor, avoid a limitations defense, and nonsuit the original defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The court shall grant the motion to strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the designated person's responsibility for the claimant's injury or damage.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[T]he defendant typically would be the party seeking to retain the RTP in the jury charge to diminish his potential liability and perhaps eliminate any joint and several liability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.