Ex Parte Rush’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2011
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 Tuscaloosa County v. Shamblin · 349 So. 2d 9 - Martin v. Loeb & Co., Inc. · Hanks v. Hanks · Folmar v. Brantley · Ex Parte Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile
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.
“"We note at the outset that mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[A] party to a bill seeking a declaratory judgment is entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right if he would have had such a right in the cause of action for which the declaratory relief may be considered a substitute. Tuscaloosa County v. Shamblin , 233 Ala. 6 , 169 So. 234 ; Annotation, 13 A.L.R.2d 777 . "Reed v. Hill , 262 Ala. 662 at 663, 80 So.2d 728 at 729 (1955); quoted with approval in Sherer v. Burton , 393 So.2d 991 (Ala. 1981), and Hanks v. Hanks , 281 Ala. 92 , 199 So.2d 169 (1967). The same principle is recognized in Code 1975, § 6-6-228 , part of Alabama's version of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act: "`When a proceeding under this article involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“". . . In the instant case, the trial court should not have removed the case from the jury absent a finding, arrived at through the procedure for summary judgment contained in Rule 56, [A.R.Civ.P.,] that no issues of material fact existed. Thus far, no such finding has been made. Therefore, the trial court erred in striking defendant's request for a jury trial."”
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.