Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 607 FSUPP 67 - Young v. Simpson

Young v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1992
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Lewis v. East Texas Finance Co. · Nagle v. Nagle · Kenney v. Porter · Consolidated Petroleum Industries, Inc. v. Jacobs · Patton v. Crews

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

  1. “as set forth in 8.319 of the Code. Kenney v. Porter, 604 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, the alleged oral agreement to repurchase the stock in Hush Puppy of Little Rock, Inc. is subject to the Code's requirements. Since there is no writing signed by Simpson which evidences such alleged agreement, Dr. Young's claim is unenforceable even if there had been such an agreement. See Consolidated Petroleum Industries, Inc. v. Jacobs, 648 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex. App.—Eastland, 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.