Thomas v. Oldham’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson (2003), Harris County v. Sykes (2004)
3 federal appellate · 117 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, 13th District)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Alder v. United States · Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board · Sax v. Votteler · Lowe v. Texas Tech University
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A judgment in an action or a settlement of a claim under this chapter bars any action involving the same subject matter by the claimant against the employee of the governmental unit whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a plaintiff who pursues the statutory remedy against the government may lose his or her common law remedy against the employee, the plaintiff is not required to follow this course. He or she may still opt to pursue the full common law remedy against the responsible employee, foregoing or postponing any attempt to recover from the government.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a person is confronted by an “emergency” arising suddenly and unexpectedly, which was not proximately caused by any negligence on his part and which, to a reasonable person, requires immediate action without time for deliberation, his conduct in such an emergency is not negligence or failure to use ordinary care if, after such emergency arises, he acts as a person of ordinary prudence would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.”
3 later decisions 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.