Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 MDAPP 295 - Tucker v. Woolery

Tucker v. Woolery’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2014

12 state decisions

80199420002010decided

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 Pierson v. Ray · Stump v. Sparkman · Briscoe v. W · Mireles v. Waco · Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.

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

  1. “1. Whether the act was performed by a judicial officer. 2. Whether the act was discretionary rather than ministerial. 3. Whether the act was within the jurisdiction of the officer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “serves at the pleasure of the appointing court and is an officer of the court in which the referred matter is pending.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. (2008)

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.