Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 SW2D 413 - Sharp & Dohme, Inc. v. Waybourne

Sharp & Dohme, Inc. v. Waybourne’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 1972
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1972

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

5019341940195019601970decided

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 Southern Surety Co. v. Nalle & Co. · Western Cottage Piano & Organ Co. v. Anderson · Paggi v. Rose Mfg. Co. · National Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott · 39 Tex. Civ. App. 448 - Parker v. Stroud

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

  1. ““ * * * The description of Banks both in the citation and the return is insufficient to show that he was local agent within the state. In both he is described generally as agent. What kind of agent is not stated in either, and service on one who is agent is not authorized. He must be a local agent within the state, and this must affirmatively appear, before judgment by default would be proper. In the petition Banks is described as defendant’s agent in the state of Texas, who resides at Dallas. If the allegation would be permitted to aid the citation and return, it does not show that Banks was local agent of defendant in Texas. * * * What kind of agent— general or local — or whether his authority covered a district of the state, or extended throughout the state, is not alleged. The fact that he resided in Dallas would throw no light on the question. * * * The statute is plain and easily complied with. To authorize a judgment by default, the service should be in conformity with its terms. And on appeal the record, * * * should disclose it. No one can say from this record whether Banks was a local agent or not. * * * »”
    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.