Ex Parte Helms’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

151 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. ““The attorney’s fee is but a part of the procedural remedy for enforcing substantive rights and the fee allowed as well as costs in the proceeding is incidental to and a part of the payments necessary for the support of the minors.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Miller · Ex Parte Boyle

2. “The remedies herein provided are in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McElreath v. McElreath · State of California, Department of Mental Hygiene v. Copus

3. ““Undoubtedly involuntary inability to perform a judgment or comply with ■ a court’s order is a good defense in a contempt proceeding, and when the record shows inability to perform our courts will order a defendant released. Ex parte Steinhauser, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 166 , 109 S.W.2d 485 ; Allen v. Woodward, 111 Tex. 457 , 239 S.W. 602 , 22 A.L.R. 1253 ; Ex parte Mabry, 122 Tex. 54 , 52 S.W.2d 73 ; Ex parte De Wees, 146 Tex. 564 , 210 S.W.2d 145 . On the other hand, it is well established that a proceeding of this nature is a collateral attack on the contempt judgment and this court may order the contemner released only where the judgment is void because of lack of jurisdiction in. the court to render it, or because the contemner was deprived of his liberty without due process of law which in itself involves a want of jurisdiction. This court has no jurisdiction in an original habeas corpus proceeding to weigh the evidence adduced in the contempt proceeding for the purpose of determining whether it preponderates against the judgment. Ex parte Lipscomb, 111 Tex. 409 , 239 S.W. 1101 ; Ex parte Olson, 111 Tex. 601 , 243 S.W. 773 ; Ex parte Westbrook, 126 Tex. 1 , 84 S.W.2d 700 ; Ex parte Genecov, 143 Tex. 476 , 186 S.W. 2d 225 , 160 A.L.R. 1099 , certiorari denied, Genecov v. State of Texas, 326 U.S. 733 , 66 S.Ct. 41 , 90 L.Ed. 436 , rehearing denied, 326 U.S. 808 , 66 S.Ct. 137 , 90 L.Ed. 493 ; Ex parte Nix, 149 Tex. 267 , 231 S.W.2d 411 , certiorari denied 340 U.S. 840 , 71 S.Ct. 28”

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