Smith v. Lutz’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 200th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board · Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda · Bland Independent School District v. Blue · Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale · Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Texas courts have long recognized that the State wears two hats: the State as a party to the contract and the State as sovereign. The State, in acting within a color of right to take or withhold property in a contractual situation, is acting • akin to a private citizen and not under any sovereign powers. In this situation, the State does not have the intent to take under its eminent domain powers; the State only has an intent to act within the scope of the contract. Because [the State] was acting under colorable contractual rights, it did not have the requisite intent to take [the plaintiffs] labor and materials under any eminent domain powers. Accordingly, [the plaintiffs] constitutional-takings claim must fail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Creating a waiver-by-conduct exception would force the State to expend its resources to litigate the waiver-by-conduct issue before enjoying sovereign immunity's protections— and this would defeat many of the doctrine’s underlying policies.”). 63 . See, e.g., Employees Retirement Sys. of Tex. v. Putnam, LLC, 294 S.W.3d 309, 327 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009, no pet.); Smith v. Lutz, 149 S.W.3d 752, 761 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.). 64 . See Albert, 354 S.W.3d at 374 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.”
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.