Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 840 SW2D 952 - Centex Corp. v. Dalton

Centex Corp. v. Dalton’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
2
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins (2001), Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. (1998)

9 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

3801992200020102020decided

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, 4th District (San Antonio))

Relationships

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1818

Relies on Stoner v. Thompson · Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross · Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. George E. Gibbons & Co. · Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan · Dobbins v. Redden

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

  1. “A condition precedent is an event that must happen or be performed before a right can accrue to enforce an obligation.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Conn Credit I, L.P. v. TF Loanco III, L.L.C. · Ac Interests, L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
  2. ““Where ... a party’s performance is made impracticable ... by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged.... ” Restatement (Second) Of Contracts § 261 (1981). A governmental regulation or order that makes impracticable the performance of a duty “is an event the non-occurrence of which was made a basic assumption on which the contract was made.” Restatement (Second) Of CONTRACTS § 264 (1981).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Sherwin Alumina L.P. v. Aluchem, Inc. · Samson Exploration, LLC v. T. S. Reed Properties, Inc.

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.