Dial v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1968
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.
Relationships
Relies on Clevenger v. Mayfield · 10 Tex. Civ. App. 114 - King v. Comm'rs. Court of Throckmorton County · Barmore v. Darragh · Business Men's Oil Co. v. Priddy · Williams v. Nolan
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.
““It is settled beyond all question in this state that in a suit to cancel a written instrument all persons whose rights, interests, or relations with or through the subject-matter of the suit will be affected by the cancellation are necessary parties. Business Men’s Oil Co. v. Priddy (Tex.Com.App.), 250 S.W. 156 ; McKay v. Phillips (Tex.Civ.App.) 220 S.W. 176 ; State National Bank v. Lancaster (Tex.Civ.App.) 229 S.W. 883 ; Dial v. Martin (Tex.Civ.App.) 8 S.W.2d 241 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“executor of the estate of J. C. Dial, deceased,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dial v. Martin
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.