Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 TEX 103 - Contreras v. Haynes

Contreras v. Haynes’s Empirical Analysis

1884

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
October 1944
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1944

20 state decisions

901884189019001910192019301940decided

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.

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

  1. ““But it was not the intention of the rules that a trial amendment should be made to include pleadings which were not demanded by the ruling of the court upon such exceptions. Otherwise all regulations on the subject of substituting the instrument amended might be evaded by means of a trial amendment.””
    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.