Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 671 S.W.2d 37 - Strackbein v. Prewitt

Strackbein v. Prewitt’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

167 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine (1992), Walker v. Gutierrez (2003)

167 state decisions

6601984199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio))

Relationships

Relies on Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. · Ivy v. Carrell · Lassiter v. Bliss · Dallas Heating Co., Inc. v. Pardee · Wright v. Swayne

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

  1. “A default judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered in any case in which the failure of the defendant to answer before judgment was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to a mistake or an accident; provided the motion for a new trial sets up a meritorious defense and is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaintiff.”
    30 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he issue is not one of which court’s discretion shall prevail. Rather, it is a matter of the appellate court reviewing the acts of the trial court to determine if a mistake of law was made. The law in the instant case is set out in Craddock . That law requires the trial court to test the motion for new trial and the accompanying affidavits against the requirements of Craddock . If the motion and the affidavits meet those requirements, a new trial should be granted.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “set forth facts which, if true, would negate [an] intentional or consciously indifferent”
    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.