Love v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 133 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Soon after the adoption of the present Constitution, the judge of the district court of Jefferson county announced that he was embarrassed to proceed with a trial because `of his personal interest adverse to the appellants in the questions involved in this cause.' The objection to the judge's qualification to determine the cause was overruled by the Supreme Court in an opinion by Judge Bonner, stating: "`The constitution prohibits a judge from sitting in a case in which he may be interested. Const. 1876, art. V, sec. 11. "`The statute is to the same effect. R.S., art. 1090. "`The interest of the learned judge presiding, however, was simply in the question involved, and not in the result of the suit. This was not such disqualifying interest as would prevent him from trying the cause, or would authorize the appointment of a special judge. "`The presiding judge not having been disqualified, it was his duty, however embarrassing, to have proceeded with the trial. Taylor v. Williams, 26 Tex. 583 ; Houston & T. C. Railway Co. v. Ryan, 44 Tex. 426 ; Davis v. State, 44 Tex. 523 ; 1 Greenl.Ev., § 389.' McFaddin v. Preston, 54 Tex. 403, 406 . "* * * "In Judge Brown's carefully considered opinion in the case of the City of Oak Cliff v. State, 97 Tex. 391 , 79 S.W. 1068 , it is said: `In his treatise on Courts, Mr. Work expresses the result of the authorities upon the question thus: "The interest which will disqualify a judge must be direct and immediate, and not contingent and remote."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roach v. Ingram · City of Pasadena v. State Ex Rel. City of Houston

2. ““Under the Texas Constitution, it is the duty of the judge to sit save ‘in any case wherein he may be interested, or where either of the parties may be connected with him, either by affinity or consanguinity, within such a degree as may be prescribed by law, or when he shall have been counsel in the case,’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Manges v. Garcia · Sun Oil Company v. Whitaker

3. “■ No judge shall sit in any case wherein he may be interested, or where either of the parties may be connected with him, either by affinity or consanguinity, within such a degree as may be prescribed by law, or when he shall have been counsel in the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robb v. Robb · A.H. Belo Corp. v. Southern Methodist University