Gillespie v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2008
9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is that to justify a nunc pro tunc order there must exist some memorandum or notation found among the papers or books of the presiding judge, and a nunc pro tunc order will not be valid unless there is some such memorandum showing what judgment or order was actually made and these juris-dictonal facts recited. Rush v. Rush, 97 Tenn. 279, 283 , 37 S.W. 13 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. State · Dewees v. Sweeney“‘ ‘ Mistake apparent in record. — Every mistake apparent on the face of the record may be corrected by the court at any term after final judgment, at the discretion of the court. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. State
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.