Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 SW2D 949 - Turley v. Tobin

Turley v. Tobin’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
September 1977
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1977

8 state decisions

30192819301940195019601970decided

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 Coleman v. Zapp · Yeaman v. Galveston City Company · Ennis Mercantile Co. v. Wathen · Cockrell v. Schmitt · Burgemeister v. Anderson

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

  1. ““The rule whereby secondary evidence is admitted as to lost or destroyed records is not applicable to judicial records, although parol evidence is admissible in a proceeding to have the missing record properly made up. “It is generally held that the proceedings, judgments, and decrees of court of record can be proved only by the record itself or a properly authenticated copy thereof, and that, if no record of such matters has ever been made, the absence of the record cannot be supplied by parol or other extrinsic evidence, the rule whereby secondary evidence is admitted as to lost or destroyed records not being applicable. In such cases the proper remedy is by legal proceedings to have the missing record properly made up, and for this purpose parol evidence is admissible to show the existence and occurrence of the proceedings, the record of which is to be supplied. * * *””
    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.