Spangler v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc. (1998), Thrift v. Hubbard (1995)
2 federal appellate · 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 193rd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. · Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc. · Stafford v. Stafford · Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America · Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Spangler’s claims fall within the category of claims for which equitable prejudgment interest may be awarded. The decision of whether this ease merits an award of prejudgment interest is left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court is to make this decision using the equitable principles and public policy reasons set forth in Cavnar.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the relationship of the parties and their conduct concerning the transaction at hand.” Spangler v. Jones, 861 S.W.2d 392, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, writ denied), quoted in Schultz, 956 S.W.2d at 760 ; Bridas S.A.P.LC. v. Government of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 356-57 (5th Cir.2003) [”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.