Womack v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
267 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 271 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals (1985), Anderson v. City of Seven Points (1991)
267 state decisions
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 Boone v. Lightner · Hamilton v. Hamilton · Sansom v. Mercer · Sharpe v. Landowners Oil Assn. · Lauraine v. Ashe
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 271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When all the facts and circumstances of the case unquestionably require a separate trial to prevent manifest injustice, and there is no fact or circumstance supporting or tending to support a contrary conclusion, and the legal rights of the parties will not be prejudiced thereby, there is no room for the exercise of discretion. The rule then is peremptory in operation and imposes upon the court a duty to order a separate trial. While the refusal to order a separate trial under such circumstances is usually termed a clear abuse of discretion, it is nevertheless a violation of a plain legal duty.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule denying mandamus with respect to matters of a discretionary character is not without limitation, however, and the writ may issue in a proper case to correct a clear abuse of discretion. See City of Houston v. Adams, [154] Tex. [448], 279 S.W.2d 308 ; Stakes v. Rogers, 139 Tex. 650 , 165 S.W.2d 81 ; City of San Antonio v. Zogheib, 129 Tex. 141 , 101 S.W.2d 539 ; Arberry v. Beavers, 6 Tex. 457 , 55 Am.Dec. 791; King v. Guerra, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 373 (writ ref.); 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, §§ 63 and 73, pp. 100, 126; 34 Am.Jur. 858, Sec. 69; 35 Am.Jur. 31, Sec. 259. While no Texas case has been found in which the writ issued to correct the action of an officer or tribunal in a matter of discretion, the cited cases recognize the exception to the general rule.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At any stage thereof any action or proceeding in any court in which a person in military service is involved, either as plaintiff or defendant, during the period of such service or within sixty days thereafter may, in the discretion of the court in which it is pending, on its own motion, and shall, on application to it by such person or some person on his behalf, be stayed as provided in this Act . unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.