Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 Tex. 414 - Hugo v. Seffel

Hugo v. Seffel’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. (1938), Grogan Manufacturing Co. v. Lane (1943)

40 state decisions

1601899190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. ““Therefore in case the appellee or defendant in error fail to make a motion to dismiss on account of a defective bond, it is clearly intended that the court should proceed to hear and determine the appeal. It follows that since the passage of the statute quoted, a defective bond is sufficient to give the Court of Civil Appeals jurisdiction over the appeal. We therefore conclude that whether the appeal bond was good or not, the Court of Civil Appeals had jurisdiction of the case and properly refused to set aside its judgment of affirmance on certificate.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When there is a defect of substance or form in any appeal or writ of error bond, on motion to dismiss the same for such defect, the court may allow the same to be amended by filing in the said Courts of Civil Appeals a new bond, on such terms as the court may prescribe.”
    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.