State Ex Rel. Malone v. Mummert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “Usually, if a necessary party to the action is not a named party at the appellate level, the proper remedy is to dismiss or remand the action and start anew. However, this is not the usual case. Here, the real parties in interest to the litigation have had a full opportunity to present their positions and arguments. Requiring relators to name Judge Lohmar as respondent and litigate the same issues again would cause unnecessary delay and expense. No prejudice will result to any party from substituting Judge Lohmar as a respondent, and his addition as a party will result in a complete resolution of this matter without the necessity of further proceedings or expense. This Court, under a similar rationale, has used Rule 52.06 to add a party rather than dismiss a count of the lawsuit under review. Moreover, in this proceeding for mandamus, we are acting in our original jurisdiction. Under the circumstances of this case, it is proper for an appellate court to utilize Rule 52.06 to substitute the appropriate party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Netco, Inc. v. Judah

2. “Venue is pretensive if (1) the petition on its face fails to state a cause of action against the resident defendant; or (2) the petition does state a cause of action against the resident defendant,, but the record, pleadings and facts presented in support of a motion asserting pretensive joinder establish that there is, in fact, no cause of action against the resident defendant and that the information available at the time the petition was filed would not support a reasonable legal opinion that a case could be made against the resident defendant. The standard is an objective one, appropriately denominated as a realistic belief that under the law and the, evidence a [valid] claim exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Breckenridge v. Sweeney

3. “information available at the time the petition was filed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Neill