Harris v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2014
3 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 Cooke v. Gaidry · City of Paducah v. Electric Plant Board of Paducah
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.
“"Certainly, at least, there is nothing ... that would allow relief inconsistent with the declaratory judgment, because that would destroy the very purpose of declaratory proceedings. So, in the first place, for the reason that the relief appellants want now would be inconsistent with the judgment fixing the proportionate interests of the parties, it could not be obtained through further proceedings... . "Had . .. [plaintiff] limited the demands of her complaint and amended complaint... it would have been improper for the trial court to direct the manner in which the estate should be distributed, because, as she rightfully contends, other issues might have had to be resolved before such a determination could be made. . . . "... The fact is that . .. [plaintiff] herself asked the trial court to tell her how to divide the estate.... Only chaos could result if a litigant in a declaratory judgment action were permitted, after judgment, to raise new and further issues for the purpose of obtaining relief inconsistent with the judgment already entered. "Since the judgment gave the appellant the relief demanded in her complaint, to-wit, a declaration of rights and interests of the parties to the estate in her hands, we hold that it was not premature, not erroneous, and that it is conclusive as to all issues that were or could have been raised by the parties with respect to the determination of those rights and interests.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Certainly, at least, there is nothing ... that would allow relief inconsistent with the declaratory judgment, because that would destroy the very purpose of declaratory proceedings. So, in the first place, for the reason that the relief appellants want now would be inconsistent with the judgment fixing the proportionate interests of the parties, it could not be obtained through further proceedings... .”
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.