Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 478 SW2D 239 - Schulz v. Schulz

Schulz v. Schulz’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2014

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

7019721980199020002010decided

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 Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports · Stockyards National Bank v. Maples · Ladner v. Reliance Corp. · Ex Parte Winfield Scott · Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co.

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

  1. ““Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; * * * if”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A contention was made in State v. Cook United, Inc., [citation omitted] that if a sound reason exists for the granting of a temporary injunction a court granting such would be excused from complying with the requirement of Rule 683. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Reavley, denied this contention and stated that under Rule 683 the reasons for the granting of a temporary injunction must be stated in the order. ‘It is not required that the trial court explain its reasons for believing that the applicant has shown a probable right to final relief, but it is necessary to give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered.’ [emphasis added]”
    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.