Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 SW2D 524 - Joy v. Craig

Joy v. Craig’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 1953
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1953

4 state decisions

20193619401950decided

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 Magnolia Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Jordan · Briscoe v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Boyles v. McClure · Proctor v. Cisco & N. E. Ry. Co. · Vesper v. Lavender

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

  1. ““Exception was reserved to the action of the trial court in refusing to permit a witness to answer a hypothetical question. There is no showing in the record as to what the answer of the witness to the question would have been. Without this we are unable to review the assignment raising this question.” Carter v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1069 , writ refused; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Neiser, 54 Tex.Civ.App. 460 , 118 S.W. 166 . For full collation of authorities see 3 Texas Digest, Appeal and Error, (1).”
    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.