Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 S.W.2d 105 - Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck

Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
2
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. (1989), International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. (1991)

8 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

4901984199020002010decided

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 City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Swilley v. Hughes · Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. · Wilcox v. St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Inc.

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

  1. “good faith litigants should be assured access to the judicial system”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (2) In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. (3) Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To establish the necessary elements for her claim of tortious interference, Steck [plaintiff] had to show (1) that the defendant maliciously interfered with the contractual relationship, (2) without legal justification or excuse.”
    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.