Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 792 S.W.2d 940 - Masinga v. Whittington

Masinga v. Whittington’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2018

24 state decisions

130199020002010decided

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, 5th District (Dallas))

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Jampole v. Touchy · Peeples v. Honorable Fourth Supreme Judicial District · United States v. Garrett

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

  1. “particular, articulated and demonstrable injury,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In objecting to an appropriate discovery request within the scope of paragraph 2, a party seeking to exclude any matter from discovery on the basis of an exemption or immunity from discovery, must specifically plead the particular exemption or immunity from discovery relied upon and at or prior to any hearing shall produce any evidence necessary to support such claim either in the form of affidavits served at least seven days before the hearing or by testimony. If the trial court determines that an in camera inspection and review by the court of some or all of the requested discovery is necessary, the objecting party must segregate and produce the discovery to the court in a sealed wrapper....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the court may make any order in the interest of justice necessary to protect the movant from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment or annoyance, or invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.