Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 Tex. 476 - Ex Parte Genecov

Ex Parte Genecov’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
4
states following
January 1999
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently January 1999 · most notably Ex Parte Helms (1953), Ex Parte Werblud (1976)

3 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

250194519501960197019801990decided

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 Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · Ex Parte A.D. Lipscomb · In Re Shuler · Ex Parte Testard · 70 Tex. Crim. 209 - Sanders v. State

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

  1. “It would hardly be contended that after a court has punished a party to the limit of the statute for a violation of its injunction and such party has paid the penalty imposed upon him, he could thereafter violate the injunction with impunity and the court would be powerless to punish him therefor.... Neither could it reasonably be contended that the trial court could divide one contemptuous act into thirty separate acts and assess the maximum, punishment provided by statute for each of such acts. Had the relator been charged with but one continuous act of polluting the streams, and had the court concluded that each day or each hour of his violation constituted a separate and distinct contemptuous act, relator’s points would be well taken.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The corporation and the president are distinct entities and no more reason is perceived for adding the punishments assessed against the two of them for a contemptuous act in determining the court’s jurisdiction than for adding the punishments assessed against two individuals under the same circumstances for the same purpose.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.