Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 700 S.W.2d 579 - Chastain v. Koonce

Chastain v. Koonce’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda (2004), Bradford v. Vento (2001)

5 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

3901985199020002010decided

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, 8th District (El Paso))

Relationships

Relies on Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc. · Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls · Riverside National Bank v. Lewis · Woods v. Littleton · Smith v. Baldwin

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

  1. “(A) takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of a person to a grossly unfair degree; or (B) results in a gross disparity between the value received and consideration paid, in a transaction involving transfer of consideration.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]aking advantage of a consumer's lack of knowledge to a grossly unfair degree thus requires a showing that the resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete and unmitigated.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A consumer’s proof of gross disparity under subdivision B does not require proof that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly or with conscious indifference. Likewise, a consumer’s proof of gross unfairness does not require proof that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly to bring about the result.”
    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.