Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Kassen v. Hatley (1994), IKB Industries (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp. (1997)
140 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 Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1823
Relies on D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Landry · McConnell v. Southside Independent School District · Hernandez v. New York
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e hold that a summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion or response.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if (i) the deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, and other discovery responses referenced or set forth in the motion or response, and (ii) the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, stipulations of the parties, and authenticated or certified public records, if any, on file at the time of the hearing, or filed thereafter and before judgment with permission of the court, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response. Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“absence” under Article 20 because doing so violates the FMLA. Because “[t]he assertion of new grounds before the appellate court in support of summary judgment may prejudice the nonmovant’s ability to demonstrate that the issue raises a genuine issue of material fact,” we cannot affirm a summary judgment”
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.