Hamilton v. Poteet’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
October 1995
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Stevenson v. State · Neville v. Guardianship of Kelso · Litton Systems, Inc. v. Burrows
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.
“ABSTRACT OR ABRIDGMENT OF RECORD REQUIRED (a) In all cases, the appellant shall make and file with his brief an abstract or abridgment of the record which shall consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only such material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary for a clear understanding of all questions presented to this Court for decision. The abstract shall contain references to the pages of the record. When testimony is abstracted, the first person shall be used. Whenever a map, plat, photograph, or other exhibit must be examined for an understanding of the testimony, the appellant shall not be required to reproduce such exhibit but shall refer to the page of the transcript of the record where the exhibit appears. Each abstract shall be prefaced with a comprehensive index of its contents. Appellant’s failure to file an abstract or abridgment of the record shall be cause for dismissal of the appeal. (b) If the appellee considers appellant’s abstract to be defective or insufficient he may, at his option, submit with his brief a supplemental abstract which shall be prepared generally as set out in Paragraph (a) insofar as is practical, and shall point out wherein appellant’s abstract is defective or insufficient, with appropriate references to pages in the record. Appel-lee’s supplemental abstract shall not repeat those parts of appellant’s abstract not claimed to be defective or insuf”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gentry v. State“We have entertained motions to strike an abstract or motions to require a proper abstract where the defect or deficiency of the abstract was clearly apparent on the face of the abstract... . We will also entertain a motion to dismiss an appeal if appellant does not file an abstract or if the abstract filed is so deficient it amounts to no abstract if such fact can be ascertained from the abstract itself without necessitating an examination of the record... . There is no difference in failing to file an abstract and filing one so deficient that it amounts to no abstract.”
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.