Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 S.W.2d 525 - Kennedy v. Hyde

Kennedy v. Hyde’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
4
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Cavallini v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance (1995), Padilla v. LaFrance (1995)

17 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

5601984199020002010decided

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, 2nd District (Fort Worth))

Relationships

Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Burnaman v. Heaton

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

  1. “Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record.”
    30 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Agreements of counsel, respecting the disposition of causes, which are merely verbal, are very liable to be misconstrued or forgotten, and to beget misunderstandings and controversies; and hence there is great propriety in the rule which requires that all agreements of counsel respecting their causes shall be in writing, and if not, the court will not enforce them. They will then speak for themselves, and the court can judge of their import, and proceed to act upon them with safety. The rule is a salutary one, and ought to be adhered to whenever counsel disagree as to what has transpired between them.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “is a minimum requirement for enforcement of all agreements concerning pending suits.” Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d at 528 .”
    3 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.