State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably Montgomery v. Kennedy (1984), Alexander v. Hagedorn (1950)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 Hilton v. Guyot · United States v. Throckmorton · McMurray v. McMurray · Overton v. Blum · Reed v. Bryant
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Fraud in its relation to attacks on final judgments is either extrinsic or intrinsic. Only extrinsic fraud will entitle a complainant to relief because it is a wrongful act committed `by the other party to the suit which has prevented the losing party either from knowing about his rights or defenses, or from having a fair opportunity of presenting them upon the trial. Such, for instance, as where he has been misled by his adversary by fraud or deception, did not know of the suit, or was betrayed by his attorney. In other words, fraud which denied him the opportunity to fully litigate upon the trial all the rights of defenses he was entitled to assert. "Intrinsic fraud" in the procurement of a judgment is not ground, however, for vacating such judgment in an independent suit brought for that purpose. And within that term is included such matters as fraudulent instruments, Perjured testimony, or any matter which was actually presented to and considered by the trial court in rendering the judgment assailed. " State v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 950, 952 ."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re H__ D__, Jr. · Kuper v. Kuper
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.