Warnack v. Conner’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 1968
8 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.
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.
““The foreman, Tackett, in effect, stated that; since they had fixed the amount of the damages, the other issues were probably immaterial. “The juror Willoughby testified that the. statement caused him to make a different answer to question No. 13 than he otherwise would have made. “The juror Williams testified the statement influenced him to answer ‘Yes’ to question 13. “The only jurors called to testify were the ones named, and their testimony, as stated, is not contradicted. “Upon practically the same facts misconduct was held to have been shown in Mann v. Cook (Tex.Civ.App.) 11 S.W.2d 572 ; Taylor v. Alexander (Tex.Civ.App.) 34 S.W.2d 903 ; and Carson v. Texas Pipe Line Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 59 S.W.2d 328 .””
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.