Knowles v. Scofield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The line between writs of mandamus and prohibition is often thin, e.g., State ex. rel. Vance v. Clawson, 465 S.W.2d 164, 168-169 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), but entitlement to either must be shown to be ‘clear and indisputable,’ Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 , 88 S.Ct. 269, 274 , 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967); Denison v. Sheppard, 122 Tex. 445 , 60 S.W.2d 1031 (1933); ‘unequivocal,’ Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255 , 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1151 (1939); ‘abundantly clear,’ Meissner v. Fuchs, 290 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1956) error dismissed. * * [T]he writ will not issue ‘if the right is doubtful’ nor ‘if there is any substantial defect in the proof of the ... right,’ English v. Treaccar, 153 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1941). We agree that the writ ‘issues to require the execution of a matter whose merit is beyond dispute_’ Wortham v. Walker, [ 133 Tex. 255 ], 128 S.W.2d at 1151 [1939].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Wade v. Mays

2. ““We agree that the writ [of mandamus] ‘issues to require the execution of a matter whose merit is beyond dispute, and may not be employed as scales in which to balance the weight of evidence or to bridge the gap between broken and disconnected facts.’ Wortham v. Walker [ 133 Tex. 255 , 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1151 (1939)].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. Reiter