Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 560 SW2D 505 - Kroger Co. v. Cellan

Kroger Co. v. Cellan’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 1995
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1995

14 state decisions

70197719801990decided

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 In Re King's Estate · Garza v. Alviar · Fambrough v. Wagley · Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc. · Binford v. Snyder

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

  1. “1. the trial court erred in denying appellant’s objections to the charge and in rendering judgment against the appellant because there is no evidence or finding that the Lopez settlement was unreasonable, negligent, or made in bad faith; 2. the trial court erred in denying appellant’s Motion for Instructed Verdict, appellant’s objections to the charge, in rendering judgment against the appellant, and in overruling appellant’s Motions to Disregard Jury Findings and for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict because the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support findings of negligence, gross negligence, proximate cause, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; 3. the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to submission of Special Issue No. 1 because it was unsupported by any written pleading, contrary to the theory the case was tried upon, and calculated to nudge the jury toward its insupportable finding of negligence; 4. the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to the instruction submitted under Special Issue No. 3 because it was unsupported by any written pleading and was calculated to confuse the jury into making its insupportable bad faith finding; 5. the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to the instruction submitted under Special Issue No. 9 because it erroneously instructed the jury to include, as damages, the full amount of the Webb County judgment, thereby depriving the jury of discretion ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The jurys (sic) answers to Special Issues Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are so against the overwhelming weight and degree of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and wrong and said findings resulted in the rendition of an improper judgment.””
    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.