Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 926 SW2D 8 - Carlton v. Phillips

Carlton v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2013

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

20199620002010decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp. · Martin v. City of Washington · Barlow v. Thornhill · State Ex Rel. Conway v. Villa · Elfrink v. Burlington Northern Railroad

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

  1. “Because there is no common liability among the defendants, the [plaintiffs] should not be allowed to join the two accidents in one petition despite the language of Rule 52.05(a) regarding permissive join-der. Rule 52.05(a) provides that “[a]ll persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severely, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect or arising out of the same transaction, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or facts common to all of them will arise in the action.” The two accidents alleged in the [plaintiffs’] petition did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Each defendant is responsible for the injuries caused in the accident in which he or she was involved.”
    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.