Acree v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1994
5 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 Bell v. Blackwell · Hubb Diggs Co. v. Bell · Davis v. Hill · Levinski v. Cooper · Moody v. Miller
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Were plaintiff in error, Gay, and the Federal Land Bank adverse parties within 'the meaning of said subdivision of said article? [Art. 3266, sec. 6, V.A.T.S.] Had no objections been filed to the award of the commissioners, judgment would have been entered by the court in accordance with the terms thereof. Both said lienholders would have been by said judgment precluded from resorting to any part of the land taken for the satisfaction of their respective debts, but they would have been entitled to have the full sum of $2,949.25 awarded as compensation applied in satisfaction of such debts according to the priority thereof, to the exclusion of appellant. By the terms of the judgment rendered they are likewise precluded from resorting to any part of the land taken for the satisfaction of their respective debts, but the compensation awarded for such taking is by the terms of such judgment .reduced to $1,473.65, less than 50 per cent, of the amount awarded by the commissioners. Such reduction in the amount to be applied in satisfaction of their respective debts necessarily affects them adversely. They were adverse parties and should, have been served with citation. Walter Box Co. v. Blackburn (Tex.Civ.App.) 157 S.W. 220, 222, 223 , pars. 7 and 8, and authorities there cited; Kosminsky v. Hamburger, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 291 , 48 S.W. 1107 ; Millikin v. Houghton, 75 Cal. 539 , 17 P. 641, 642 ; Butte County v. Boydstun, 68 Cal. 189 , 8 P. 835; United States v. Crooks, 116 Cal. 43 , 47 P.”
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.