In Re Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 127th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. · King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman · Osterberg v. Peca · University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Loutzenhiser · Metzger v. Sebek
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court may find a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if the defendant shows that there is not a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the defendant and that: (1)the plaintiff, in the seven-year period immediately preceding the date the defendant makes the motion under Section 11.051, has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least five litigations as a pro se litigant other than in small claims court that have been: (A) finally determined adversely . to the plaintiff; (B) permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing; or (C) determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless under .state or federal law or rules of procedure; (2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiff repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, pro se, either: (A) the validity of the determination against the same defendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or (B) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or (3) the plaintiff has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by a state or federal court in an action or proceeding based on the same or substantially similar facts, transition, or occurrence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the plaintiff, in the seven-year period immediately preceding the date the defendant makes the motion ... has commenced, prosecuted, or main tained at least five litigations as a pro- se litigant other than in a small claims court that have been: (A) finally determined adversely to the plaintiff; (B) permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing; or (C) determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless under state or federal laws or rules of procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to make it possible for courts to control their dockets rather than permitting them to be burdened with repeated filings of frivolous and malicious litigation by litigants without hope of success while, at the same time, providing protections for litigants’ constitutional rights to an open court when they have genuine claims that can survive the scrutiny of the administrative judge and the posting of security to protect defendants.”
1 later decision 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.