Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 611 SW2D 594 - Brown v. Raines

Brown v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2013

7 state decisions

301980199020002010decided

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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Jerkins v. McKinney · 33 Tenn. App. 695 - Thomas v. Dockery · Crocker v. Balch · Clements v. Morgan

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

  1. ““That a former judgment or decree may be set aside and annulled for some frauds there can be no question, but it must be a fraud extrinsic or collateral to the questions examined and determined in the action.... The reason of this rule is that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter, or have had the opportunity of submitting it, for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive, unless it can be shown that the jurisdiction of the court has been imposed upon, or that the prevailing party has by some extrinsic or collateral fraud prevented a fair submission of the controversy. What, then, is an extrinsic or collateral fraud, within the meaning of this rule? Among the instances given in the books are such as these: Keeping the unsuccessful party away from court by a false promise of a compromise, or purposely keeping him in ignorance of the suit, or where an attorney fraudulently pretends to represent a party and connives at his defeat, or, being regularly employed, corruptly sells out his client’s interest.””
    2 later decisions 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.