Gale v. Spriggs’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1993
13 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 City of Austin v. Cannizzo · Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell · King v. McGuff · Edwards v. Strong · Hastings Oil Co. v. Texas Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““SPECIAL ISSUE NO. I. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff, Reinhard Bohle Machine Tools, Inc., on the date in question, sold to Walter Grabes, in■dividually, the FU 20 Serial No. 20014 Machine in question? “Answer: ‘We do not’.” "SPECIAL ISSUE NO. II. “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff, Reinhard Bohle Machine Tools, Inc., on the date in question, sold to Walter Grabes, doing business as Continental Machinery Company, the FU 20 Serial No. 20014 Machine in question? “You are instructed that ‘doing business’ requires more than merely working as an employee or salesman for another party, but requires some business dealing for yourself or on one’s own behalf in the conducting or transacting for your own behalf, and not merely an employee or on behalf of another. “Answer: ‘We do’.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that William Clapper had an electrocution episode on December 29, 1976? If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 “We do,” and only in that event, then answer:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Such appraiser could have testified and given an opinion based purely on hypothetical questions. It is well settled that value testimony may be based purely upon hypothetical questions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stappers v. State
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.