Hall v. Wilbarger County’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2015
20 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 Mingus, Receiver v. Wadley · Robbins v. Limestone County · Haverbekken v. Hale, County Judge · Parker v. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. · Williams v. Steele
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the court has no jurisdiction, it should proceed no further with the case other than to dismiss it for want of power to hear and determine the controversy. In such a case, any order or decree entered, other than one of dismissal is void.” Hall v. Wilbarger County, 37 S.W.2d 1041, 1046 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1931), affirmed 55 S.W.2d 797 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The right to exercise the power of eminent domain must be conferred by statute, either in express words or by necessary implication.””
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.