Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 S.W.3d 822 - Utts v. Short

Utts v. Short’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Oyster Creek Financial Corp. v. Richwood Investments II, Inc. (2004), Wackenhut Corrections Corp. v. De La Rosa (2009)

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

200200220102020decided

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, 3rd District (Austin))

Relationships

Relies on Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling · Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel · Massachusetts v. United States · Laidlaw Waste Systems (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer · McFarland v. Leyh

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

  1. “In an action in which a party seeks recovery of damages for injury to another person, damage to the property of another person, death of another person, or other harm to another person, “claimant” includes both that other person and the party seeking recovery of damages pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.001.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Debra Smith v. James East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits And Terri Bayless East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits · Brown & Root, Inc., N/K/A Kellogg-Brown & Root, Inc. v. Shearon Shelton
  2. “[A] nonsettling party should not be penalized for events over which it has no control.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Satterfield & Pontikes Constr., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. · Sky View at Las Palmas, LLC v. Mendez
  3. “a party seeking recovery of damages pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.001, including a plaintiff, counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff seeking recovery of damages. In an action in which a party seeks recovery of damages for injury to another person, damage to the property of another person, death of another person, or other harm to another person, "claimant” includes both that other person and the party seeking recovery of damages pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.001.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Wackenhut Corrections Corp. v. De La Rosa

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.