Harris v. Lebow’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine (1992), Robinson v. Robinson (1972)
38 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 Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. · Victory v. Hamilton · Ennis Mercantile Co. v. Wathen · Crawford v. Crawford · Consolidated Underwriters v. McCauley
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By his first point of error appellant contends that since the testimony was not recorded he has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault or negligence. The record contains a statement from the official court reporter to the effect that he did not report the testimony. It is generally true that an appealing party is entitled to a statement of facts in question and answer form and if, through no fault of his own, after the exercise of due diligence, he is unable to procure such a statement of facts, his right to have the cause reviewed on appeal can be preserved to him in no other way than by a retrial of the case. Victory v. Hamilton, 127 Tex. 203 , 91 S.W.2d 697 ; Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Burgess, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 1100 . However, appellant has failed to bring himself within this general rule of law and his first point must be overruled for several reasons. «* * * “ * * * appellant made no effort to obtain a statement of the evidence as provided by Rule 377, Texas Rules •of Civil Procedure. This rule authorizes the filing of a statement of facts made up by the party, or by the trial ■court if the parties fail to agree, independently of a court reporter’s notes of the testimony. Crawford v. Crawford, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 992 ; 3 Tex. Jur.2d § 474, p. 721. The identical question now presented by appellant was raised in the case of Johnson v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 317 and there decided adversely to appellant’s contention here. The record here i”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] party who has been duly served with citation to appear and defend a cause asserted against him may not relieve himself of the judgment rendered unless he thoroughly demonstrates that he and his agent were free of negligence or conscious indifference.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grissom v. Watson
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.