Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 472 SW2D 585 - Cox v. Process Engineering, Inc.

Cox v. Process Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 1994
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Belo Corp. v. Thomas Blanton · Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Hubbell · F. J. Lewis Mfg. Co v. Snyder · American Surety Co. of New York v. Shaw

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

  1. “A cause of action must both be alleged and proved in order to obtain relief from the party sought to be held liable. A. H. Belo Corp. v. Blanton, 133 Tex. 391 , 129 S.W.2d 619 (1939). A cause of action cannot exist unless one party fails to perform an obligation owed to another. The suit by plaintiff against Process is an ex contractu action based on the alleged nonperformance of an implied contractual duty. In this case the evidence shows as a matter of law that Process did not breach any duty, express or implied, owed to Cox. Failure to perform an act neither expressly nor impliedly contract to be done or performed does not constitute, in law, a breach of contract.”
    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.