Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 688 SW2D 161 - Kirby v. Cruce

Kirby v. Cruce’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Rogers v. McDorman (2008), Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan (2000)

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

2001985199020002010decided

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 162nd Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp. · Roark v. Allen · International Bankers Life Insurance Co. v. Holloway · Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Oil & Gas Corp. · Pirtle v. Gregory

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

  1. “An agreement or understanding constituting a “civil conspiracy” need not be formal. The understanding may be a tacit one, and it is not essential that each conspirator have knowledge Of the details of the conspiracy. Because civil conspiracies are conceived in secrecy and executed in such a manner as to avoid detection and exposure, a civil conspiracy need not be shown by direct evidence and is ordinarily established by circumstantial evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “As a general rule, so long as the agent acts within the scope of his employment, in good faith, and for the interest of his principal, the agent is presumed to have disclosed all facts that come to his knowledge. The exception to this rule is that the agent’s knowledge is not imputed to the principal when the agent engages in fraudulent conduct....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “point of error, we consider only evidence and inferences that tend to support the finding, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. If there is any evidence of probative force to support the finding, the”
    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.