Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 643 F.2d 372 - Budge v. Post

Budge v. Post’s Empirical Analysis

643 F.2d 372 · 1981

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Stuart v. Spademan (1985), Bartholomew v. CNG Producing Co. (1987)

20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

38019811990200020102020decided

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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Rodriguez v. United States · Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co. · E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Manhattan Construction Company of Texas, Providence Hospital, Fairbanks-Morse, Inc., Charles H. McCauley Associates, Inc. · Charles R. Little, Cross-Appellee v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cross-Appellant

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

  1. “to whether there was any evidence to support the jury's verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain error was committed which, if not noticed, would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Thus, the Texas choice-of-law rules provide that if the parties have expressly agreed that the contract is to be governed by the law of a particular state, that intention prevails.”
    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.