Curtis v. Gibbs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

152 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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general common law rule in Texas is that the court in which suit is first filed acquires dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other coordinate courts. Cleveland v. Ward, 116 Tex. 1 , 285 S.W. 1063 (1926), Ex parte Lillard, 159 Tex. 18 , 314 S.W.2d 800 (1958). Any subsequent suit involving the same parties and the same controversy must be dismissed if a party to that suit calls the second court’s attention to the pendency of the prior suit by a plea in abatement. If the second court refuses to sustain a proper plea in abatement, or attempts to interfere with the prior action, this court has the power to act by mandamus or other appropriate writ to settle the conflict of jurisdictions. Cleveland v. Ward, supra; Wheeler v. Williams, 158 Tex. 383 , 312 S.W.2d 221 (1958); Way & Way v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 119 Tex. 419 , 29 S.W.2d 1067 (1930); Conn v. Campbell, 119 Tex. 82 , 24 S.W.2d 813 (1930).”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. v. Sterling · Dallas Fire Insurance Co. v. Davis

2. “(b) Any action or suit commenced after January 1,1974, that has as its object the modification of an order, judgment, or decree entered prior to January 1, 1974, but which under this Act would be a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, is governed by the provisions of this Act, and shall be treated as the commencement of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which no court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction. Acts 1973, ch. 543, § 4(b), at 1459.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Owens · Fleming v. Easton

3. “[T]he Bowie court first acquired jurisdiction of the controversy between the parties and therefore retained dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts. [The Dallas court] had no right to interfere with the actions or orders of [the Bowie court], or to take any other action with respect to the suit filed in Dallas except to sustain the plea in abatement and to dismiss the suit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fleming v. Ahumada · Owens v. Moore