Patrick v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1973
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ladner v. Reliance Corp. · Jackson v. Hall, C.J. · Knollhoff v. Norris · Sims v. Trinity Farm Const. Co. · Walter v. Hammonds
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.
““In the instant case was sufficiently alleged — in the father’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and in his controverting affidavit which adopted said petition —a cause of action against Nettie Earline Patrick grounded on her crime or trespass in Montague County, Texas, within Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, ‘Venue, general rule’, subdivision 9 ‘Crime or trespass’. Additionally, the proof established a prima facie case thereunder within the pleadings. True it is that the only exception to general venue mentioned in the pleadings was subdivision 7, ‘Fraud and defalcation’, but the failure to refer to subdivision 9 was not fatal. If a controverting plea states venue facts which will sustain venue under any exception, it is sufficient even though it omits such a reference or urges an exception which is inapplicable, or, though applicable, is not established. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, p. 450, ‘Venue’, § 4.49, ‘(Controverting Affidavit) — Contents’. Sims v. Trinity Farm Const. Co., 1930 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco), 28 S.W.2d 856 ; Walter v. Hammonds, 1931 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana), 42 S.W.2d 1084 ; Hunt Oil Co. v. Murchison, 1961 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland), 352 S.W.2d 365 ; and cases annotated under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 86, ‘Plea of Privilege’ at note 5, ‘Controverting affidavit, generally’.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moss v. Loveless
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.