Schwartz v. Diehl’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Russell v. Board of County Commissioners (1997), Smith v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1987)
38 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 Johns v. DISTRICT CT. IN & FOR 13TH JUD. DIST. · In Re Mayes-Rogers Counties Conservancy Dist. Formation · City of McAlester v. Fogg · Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Coryell · State ex rel. Director of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Smith
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All venue statutes are cumulative wherever they appear and any action brought under any such statute may be maintained where brought. No court shall apply one venue statute in preference to another whether considered general or special.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Courts, of course, will pass upon the constitutionality of a statute only when it is necessary to a determination on the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This result is not changed by the existence of § 143. The provisions of § 143 that venue statutes are ‘cumulative’ and disallowing preference of one statute over another, are necessarily dependent upon venue being proper in two or more counties. “It is clear that § 143 is not applicable where venue is statutorily authorized in only one county . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thornton v. Woodson
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.