Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 870 SW2D 608 - Sclafani v. Sclafani

Sclafani v. Sclafani’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2017

7 state decisions

40199420002010decided

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 311th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Lauraine v. First Nat. Bank of Whitney · McFarlane v. Greenameyer · Whitaker Oil Company v. Ward · Benningfield v. Benningfield · O & G Carriers, Inc. v. Smith Energy 1986-A Partnership

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

  1. “[Permitting appeal from final judgment] would mean that a party could rightfully attempt to set aside an order of receivership in an appeal regardless of how long ago the receivership order was entered. The setting aside of an order of receivership has "the effect of nullifying all intervening acts of the receiver ... or, at least, of raising serious questions concerning the validity of such intervening acts." Allowing the vacation of a receivership at any time after its creation would work undue hardship on third parties who have dealt in good faith with the receiver. Furthermore, an unlimited time to appeal would mean that the order of receivership would never be beyond challenge, and thus never attain the finality upon which the parties, the receiver, and those who have transacted with the receiver, are entitled to depend.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the effect of nullifying all intervening acts of the receiver ... or, at least, of raising serious questions concerning the validity of such intervening acts.”
    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.