McDaniel v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 2004 · most notably City of Ingleside v. Stewart (1977), Hadra v. Herman Blum Consulting Engineers (1980)
10 federal appellate · 23 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 Wagner v. Foster · Watkins v. Junker · Texas Co. v. State & Duval County Ranch Co. · Ewing, Ind. Exs. v. Wm. L. Foley, Inc. · Van Zandt v. Fort Worth Press
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The test is whether or not the measure of the recovery or claim, and not necessarily the amount of damages, is fixed by the conditions existing at the time the injury arose or was inflicted. If the measure is determinable at the time of the injury, interest is properly awarded from the time of the injury, and is added by the court to the amount of damages in rendering judgment. Reed v. Fulton, 384 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.Civ.App.— Corpus Christi 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Metal Structures Corporation v. Plains Textiles, Inc., 470 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Civ. App.—Amarillo 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Beck v. Lawler, 422 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.). In the case at bar, the measure of the recovery was determinable at the time the injury occurred, which was on September 10,1971, when the work was completed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The right to recover on quantum meruit does not grow out of the contract, but is independent of it. It is based upon the promises implied by law to pay for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted. . “. . . Quantum meruit being a recovery outside of, and independent of the contract, there was no lien agreed upon between the parties to secure the payment of a quantum meruit recovery. For this reason, there is no lien to be foreclosed, and the courts below erred in ordering a foreclosure of the mechanic’s and mate-rialman’s lien contract.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Rigby“determinable and established at a definite time.”
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.