Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 838 S.W.2d 794 - Gober v. Wright

Gober v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 10th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on McGalliard v. Kuhlmann · Meers v. Sundstrand Corp. · Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Andrade · Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Thomas · Otis Elevator Co. v. Joseph

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

  1. “7. The jury’s finding in response to Question No. 2 (inquiring whether Appellant’s breach of warranty was excused) is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, or alternatively is supported by insufficient evidence. 9. The trial court erred in entering final judgment nunc pro tunc on Jury Question No. 4, because Appellee’s failure to pay rent is not excused as a matter of law. 10. The jury’s finding in response to Question No. 4 (finding that Appellee’s breach of the lease was excused) is against the great weight and preponder- anee of the evidence, or alternatively is supported by insufficient evidence. 11.The trial court erred in submitting Question No. 4 (finding that Appellee’s breach of the lease was excused), because the interpretation of an unambiguous lease is a question of law for the court. 15. The trial court erred in not awarding Appellant the past due rent owed by Appellee, because Appellee owed this delinquent rent as a matter of law; alternatively, the jury should have awarded this delinquent rent to Appellant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “‘Implied Warranty of suitability for commercial purpose’ means that when the lease was entered into there were no latent defects in the facilities that were vital to the use of the premises for their intended commercial purposes and that those essential facilities will remain in a suitable condition. There is an implied warranty of suitability for commercial purpose in every commercial lease.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.