Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 397 S.W.2d 213 - Boswell v. Handley

Boswell v. Handley’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
states following
August 2001
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Litton Industrial Products, Inc. v. Gammage (1984), Life Insurance Co. of Virginia v. Gar-Dal, Inc. (1978)

2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

26019651970198019902000decided

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 Gardner v. Martin · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn · Straffus v. Barclay · Lotspeich v. Chance Vought Aircraft · Neeley v. County of Tarrant

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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If petitioner was in any doubt as to these matters or if it was prejudiced in any way by the fact that sworn or certified copies of the operating agreements were not attached to or served with the Johnson affidavit, it should have excepted to the affidavits at or prior to the hearing. The deficiences which it now urges appear to be purely formal, and it may be assumed that they would have been corrected upon proper exception in the trial court. We hold that objections of this kind may not be raised for the first time on appeal when it fairly appears from the record that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We held that in those circumstances the copy constituted a sufficient basis upon which a motion for summary judgment could be either granted or denied, in the absence of an exception by the opposing party.” (Emphasis by the Supreme Court).”
    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.