Ross v. 3D Tower Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Copeland v. Alsobrook (1999), Thomas v. Thomas (1996)
2 federal appellate · 23 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 Roark v. Allen · Ex Parte Johnson · Hennigan v. Hennigan · Ex Parte Stanford · Matrix, Inc. v. Provident American Insurance Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A judgment creditor is entitled to aid from a court of appropriate jurisdiction through injunction or other means in order to reach property to obtain satisfaction on the judgment if the judgment debtor owns property, including present or future rights to property, that: (1) cannot readily be attached or levied on by ordinary legal process; and (2) is not exempt from attachment, execution, or seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities. (b) The court may: (1) order the judgment debtor to turn over nonexempt property that is in the debtor’s possession or is subject to the debtor’s control, together with all documents or records related to the property, to a designated sheriff or constable for execution; [[Image here]] (e) The judgment creditor is entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Even where a plaintiff does not request the court to do so, and where the court does not announce that it took notice, a reviewing court may nevertheless presume that the trial court took judicial notice of reasonable attorney’s fees,”). . The name of the clinic is omitted to preserve the confidentiality of the identity of the pregnant minor. . Rule 2.4(e) of the Rules for a Judicial Bypass of Parental Notice and Consent under Chapter 33, entitled”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Doe
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.