Griffith v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Being voluntary and not obligatory, the application of comity vests in the sound discretion of the tribunal of the forum.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guimaraes v. Brann · Fuentes v. Zaragoza

2. “This doctrine of dominant jurisdiction, however, does not apply to suits pending in other states. See Ex parte Jabara , 556 S.W.2d 592 , 596 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1977, orig. proceeding) ("We conclude that the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction does not apply to suits pending in other states. Texas courts may recognize prior proceedings in other states as a matter of comity, but pendency of a proceeding in another state does not oust the jurisdiction of Texas courts to entertain the same controversy"). Rather, when an action is pending in another state, we apply the doctrine of comity, which, while not a constitutional obligation, is a "principle of mutual convenience whereby one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another." In re AutoNation, Inc. , 228 S.W.3d 663 , 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Under the doctrine of comity, a Texas court would usually stay its proceeding pending adjudication of the first filed suit pending in another state. See ids="8401486" index="53" url="https://cite. case.law/sw3d/228/663/#p670">id. ; VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young , 860 S.W.2d 83 , 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam). However, "[i]t is well settled that the mere pendency of a prior suit in one state cannot be pleaded in abatement or in bar to a subsequent suit in another, even though both suits are between the same parties and involve the same subject matter." In re State Farm [ Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. ], 192 S.W.3d [897] at 900 [ (Tex. App.-Tyler 2006) ] (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guimaraes v. Brann

3. “The doctrine does not stand boldly clad in the armor of unyielding obedience but is rather arrayed in vestments of persuasion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guimaraes v. Brann