Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 657 SW2D 834 - Veale v. Rose

Veale v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably LSP Investment Partnership v. Bennett (1993), Nottingham v. General American Communications Corp. (1987)

9 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

1901983199020002010decided

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 Garza v. Alviar · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull · Smith v. Bolin · Burnett v. Motyka · Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Northwest National Bank of Fort Worth

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

  1. “Although Article 2226 and § 38.001 do not provide for attorney’s fees for the pure defense of a claim, “there is an exception to the general rule of law for cases in which the matters encompassed by the claim and counterclaim are indistinguishable, where they arose from the same transactions, where the same facts required to prosecute the claim are required to defend against the counterclaim”; under these circumstances, attorney’s fees are appropriate.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In this case, the claim and counterclaim are very closely related. Though based on different provisions, the claim and counterclaim alleged breaches of the same contract. Basically, the same facts on which the appellants based their affirmative defenses to Rose’s suit formed the basis of their counterclaim .... The two actions are so interrelated that no distinction between the prosecution of Rose’s claim and the defense of the counterclaim is necessary. (Emphasis added.)”
    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.