Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 50 SW2D 478 - Phillips v. the MacCabees

Phillips v. the MacCabees’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 1995
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1995

7 state decisions

301932194019501960197019801990decided

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 York v. State of Texas · York v. State · Sullivan v. Doyle · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Stevens · Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.

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

  1. ““The general rule is stated to be that a defendant who has been cited but has not answered must be notified of every amendment which sets up a new cause of action or requires a more onerous judgment of him; but if he has pleaded to the action or otherwise entered an appearance therein, he is before the court for all purposes and is charged with notice of all amendments thereafter filed.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““As we understand the rule, where a vendee breaches a contract for the sale of land, the vendor may treat the contract as breached and sue for the damages, or he may affirm the contract and sue for the purchase price. If the vendor elects to affirm the contract, he is entitled to recover the agreed purchase price of the land, with foreclosure of his implied lien, without waiting until the installments mature as provided in the contract. The contract purchaser, having refused to ex ecute notes for the deferred payments as provided in the contract, waives his right to postpone the maturity of the indebtedness.” (Cases cited).”
    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.