Giles v. Cardenas’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Chevron Pipe Line Company et al. (2000), Jerry Parks Equipment Company, Cross and Leger & Sanders, P.C., Cross v. Southeast Equipment Co., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Appellant-Cross and Molony, North & Hanewinckel and Stilwell, Bedinger & Cain, Appellants-Cross v. Southwest Equipment Co., Inc., Third Party (1987)
5 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
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 73rd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Allied Finance Co. v. Garza · Cowling v. Colligan · Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Norton · Smith v. Davis · Foreman v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N
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.
“[are] entitled to look at the entire record and to view the matter in the light of the testimony, the amount in controversy, the nature of the case, and our common knowledge and experience as lawyers and judges”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'reasonable relationship to the amount in controversy or to the complexity'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jerry Parks Equipment Company, Cross and Leger & Sanders, P.C., Cross v. Southeast Equipment Co., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Appellant-Cross and Molony, North & Hanewinckel and Stilwell, Bedinger & Cain, Appellants-Cross v. Southwest Equipment Co., Inc., Third Party · Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Chevron Pipe Line Company et al.“However, if their attorneys spent 92.7 hours in preparing the case for trial, then they overprepared the case, and appellants should not be held liable for attorney’s fees due to overpreparing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Herring v. Bocquet
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.