Grimes v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2008
9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 79th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on McElreath v. Stewart · Greene v. Schuble · Strobel v. Thurman · Wilkins v. Royal Indemnity Co. · Armstrong v. Armstrong
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) If the right to possession of a child is not governed by an order, the court in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the right of possession of the child: (1) shall compel return of the child to the parent if the right of possession is between a parent and a nonparent and a suit affecting the parent-child relationship has not been filed; or (2) may either compel return of the child or issue temporary orders under Chapter 105 if a suit affecting the parent-child relationship is pending and the parties have received notice of a hearing on temporary orders set for the same time as the habeas corpus proceeding. (b) The court may not use a habeas corpus proceeding to adjudicate the right of possession of a child between two parents or between two or more nonparents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re deFilippi“Texas appellate courts have repeatedly held that a serious and immediate question concerning the children’s welfare requires proof of an imminent danger to the children’s physical or emotional well-being, or, stated another way, a dire emergency. “Unless it was shown, and the trial court found, that the children were in imminent danger of physical or emotional harm and that immediate action was necessary to protect [them], the trial court [is] without authority to deny the writ.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Kubankin“1. Grant the Writ of Habeas Corpus prayed for by Relator and thereby return possession of the children, Jennifer and Julie Grimes, to their managing conservator, the Relator, Janeann Grimes, 2. Defer any further actions involving conservatorship of Jennifer and Julie Grimes to the courts of the State of Illinois or to the state of the residence of the Relator, and 3. Return the Writ on or before September 12,1986, stating how he executed and complied with the Writ.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grimes v. Flores
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.