Bounds v. Caudle’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Twyman v. Twyman (1993), Boblitz v. Boblitz (1983)
6 federal appellate · 56 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 Garza v. Alviar · Fambrough v. Wagley · Pope v. Garrett · Turner v. Turner · Grieger v. Vega
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nevertheless, we must determine if the doctrine should be maintained as a matter of public policy. We recognize fully the importance of the family unit in our society and that peace and tranquility in the- home are endowed and inspired by higher authority than statutory enactments and court decisions. See Felderhoff v. Felderhoff, 473 S.W.2d 928, 933 (Tex.1971). However, we do not believe that suits for wilful or intentional torts would disrupt domestic tranquility. The peace and harmony of a home which has already been strained to the point where an intentional physical attack could take place will not be further impaired by allowing a suit to be brought to recover damages for the attack.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bruno v. Bruno“The doctrine of interspousal tort immunity had its origin in the common law and is based on the legal fiction that the husband and wife became one person in law. Under this concept married women lost their capacity to sue or to be sued without the joinder of the husband. The wife’s personal and property rights as well as her legal existence were considered suspended during the marriage. The husband acquired all of his wife’s choses in action and could assert them in his own name and he became liable for the torts of his wife. This concept necessarily made it impossible for one spouse to maintain an action against the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mogford v. Mogford““Although most authorities recognize a distinction between a claim based on a negligent act and one based on an intentional tort, all agree that there is no sound basis for barring a suit for an intentional tort. We concur and accordingly we abolish the rule established in Nickerson [and Matson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281 ], to the extent that it would bar all claims for wilful or intentional torts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bruno v. Bruno
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.