Houk v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1976), LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986)
115 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 Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. · Fountain v. Filson · Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman · Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. · Local 33, International Hod Carriers Building And Common Laborers' Union Of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mason Tenders District Council Of Greater New York
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * indefinite, doubtful and capable of contradictory interpretation, that construction must be adopted which least restricts the free use of the land.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an entry of summary judgment against the moving party does not prejudice his due process rights where all relevant evidence is before the court, no genuine issue as to any material fact exists, and the non-moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * When the court of appeals determines that the trial court commit ted error prejudicial to the appellant and that the appellant is entitled to have judgment or final order rendered in his favor as a matter of law, the court of appeals shall reverse the judgment or final order of the trial court and render the judgment or final order that the trial court should have rendered, or remand the cause to the court with instructions to render such judgment or final order.” (Emphasis added.) “* * *[T]he phrase ‘should have rendered’ cannot be interpreted to extend authority to the Court of Appeals beyond that granted the trial court.” Houk, supra, at 80 , 63 O.O. 2d at 121, 296 N.E. 2d at 269 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Waller v. Mayfield
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.