Davidson v. Clearman’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Construction Co. (1976), Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Stahl Petroleum Co. (1978)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 57 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 Watkins v. Junker · Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank · Dallas Electric Supply Co. v. Branum Co. · Cont'nal Natl. Bk. of Ft. Worth v. Conner · Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc.
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right to recover on quantum meru-it does not grow out of the contract, but is independent of it. It is based upon the promises implied by law to pay for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted. [citations omitted].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right to recover on quantum meruit does not grow out of the contract, but is independent of it. It is based upon the promises implied by law to pay for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted. . “. . . Quantum meruit being a recovery outside of, and independent of the contract, there was no lien agreed upon between the parties to secure the payment of a quantum meruit recovery. For this reason, there is no lien to be foreclosed, and the courts below erred in ordering a foreclosure of the mechanic’s and mate-rialman’s lien contract.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Rigby“The test is whether or not the measure of the recovery or claim, and not necessarily the amount of damages, is fixed by the conditions existing at the time the injury arose or was inflicted. If the measure is determinable at the time of the injury, interest is properly awarded from the time of the injury and is added by the court to the amount of the damages in rendering judgment, (emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fenno v. Jacobe
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.