Pirtle v. Gregory’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably In the Interest of J.F.C. (2002), In the Interest of B.L.D. (2003)
118 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 Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Ramsey v. Dunlop · McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters · Cooper v. Texas Gulf Industries, Inc. · The Continental Insurance Company of New York, New York, a Corporation v. Richard B. Cotten
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in those rare instances in which the record shows the court lacked jurisdiction or that the public interest is directly and adversely affected as that interest is declared in the statutes or the Constitution of Texas.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re EMN · Rossen v. Rossen“[I]t would be rare indeed if there were a person whose presence was so indispensable in the sense that his absence deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate between the parties already joined.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Burton v. Bridges · Lutich v. Puett“one should not be permitted to waive, consent to, or neglect to complain about an error at trial and then surprise his [or her] opponent on appeal by stating [a] complaint for the first time.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.