Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Okla. 166 - Grady v. Rice

Grady v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 1954
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1954

11 state decisions

501923193019401950decided

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 Crist v. Cosby · Marshall v. Saline River Land & Mineral Co. · Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 · Commonwealth Cotton Oil Co. v. Hudson · Brenner v. Egly

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

  1. ““Every other action must be brought in the county 'in which the defendant or some one of the defendants resides or may be summoned."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Before a summons can be rightly issued from one county to another, the person served with the summons in the county in which the action is brought must have a real and substantial interest in the subject of the action adverse to the plaintiff, and against whom some substantial result may be obtained; and the action must be rightfully brought in the county in which it is brought, and as against the person served with the summons in such county.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * When there are two or more defendants liable on the same cause of action, and the suit is brought in the proper county against one of the defendants, the other defendants may be brought in by summons, although they reside or are served in different counties. But it never was intended that a plaintiff could arbitrarily join a party as a defendant who is in no way interested or liable upon the cause of action set up In the petition. * * *””
    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.