Ex Parte Norton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rule 164. Non-Suit. At any time before the jury has retired, the plaintiff may take a non-suit, but he shall not thereby prejudice the right of an adverse party to be heard on his claim for affirmative relief. When the case is tried by the judge, such non-suit may be taken at any time before the decision is announced. “Source: R.C.S. art. 2182, unchanged.” “Rule 262. Trial by the Court. The rules governing the trial of causes before a jury shall govern in trials by the court in so far as applicable. “Source: Art. 2176, unchanged.” “Rule 265. Order of Proceedings on Trial by Jury. The trial of cases before a jury shall proceed in the following order unless the court should, for good cause, to be stated in the record, otherwise direct: “(a) Plaintiff’s petition shall be read to the jury. “(b) Defendant’s answer shall be read to the jury. “(c) If there be any intervenor his pleadings shall be read. “(d) The party upon whom rests the burden of proof on the whole case under the pleadings, shall be permitted to state to the jury briefly the nature of his claim or defense and facts relied upon in support thereof. “(e) Such party shall then introduce his evidence. ***** “Source: Art. 2180.””

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

2. ““Had the Court granted relator (Norton) his legal rights and dismissed the divorce suit, * * * he (the) [Court] would have lost jurisdiction of the divorce proceedings as such, and would have no power or jurisdiction to enter a contempt order for failure of relator to pay alimony, and, had the relator been accorded the right which was absolutely given him under the statute, there would have been absolutely no way to enforce the payment of the back alimony claimed by the wife. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Dishman v. Gary