Cammack v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In view of the above statement, the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District certifies to the Supreme Court of Texas the following questions: “‘(1) Where an assignment of error complains of two rulings of the trial court, each of which relate to separate and distinct questions, which is followed by appropriate propositions and statements explaining each of the two questions raised and rulings complained of, is the assignment so general that it should not be considered, or may it, under such circumstances, be aided and explained by the propositions dud statements; and, if such is the case, should it .by the Court of Civil Appeals be deemed sufficient so as to entitle the court to pass upon either of the questions raised by the assignment, propositions, and statements? “ ‘ (2) Is the assignment of error, in connection with the propositions and statements, as above set out, sufficient to authorize its consideration by this court?’ “(1) The decisions first cited in the certificate condemn the assignment of error as insufficient .because it complains of two distinct rulings of the court below. The decisions also hold that propositions in briefs do not supply the place of a valid assignment. The decisions of this court last cited in the certificate do not conflict with the others, the objections to the assignments considered being of a different character. Further discussion of the subject of assignments of error than is found in Land Co. v. McClelland Bros.,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carroll v. Jackson

2. ““The court erred in refusing to give special charges numbers 1 and 2 asked by the defendant, respecting the effect of dry weather on said crop and the yield therefrom, and as to the value of one-half of the ungathered hay crop on the farm at the time the plaintiff took possession under the writ of sequestration.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Egan v. Lockney Farmers' Co-op. Soc.