Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 728 SW2D 784 - Smith v. Flack

Smith v. Flack’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson County (2012), State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of Appeals for the Third District (1994)

52 state decisions

1701987199020002010decided

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 Brown v. Allen · United States v. Butler · Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island v. Wingate Corp. · Martin County, Florida v. Makemson Et Al.; And Okeechobee County, Florida v. Dennis Et Al. · Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. Atlantic Richfield 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “); City of Highland Park v. Dallas Ry. Co., 243 S.W. 674, 681 (Tex.Civ.App. —Dallas 1922, writ ref'd) (remedy must be”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hen read as a whole, Article V, ง 5 ... grants this Court the power to issue writs of mandamus when a criminal law is the subject of the litigation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “District courts are empowered by the Texas Constitution to ‘issue writs of ha-beas corpus, mandamus, injunction, and certiorari, and all writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.... ’ Tex.Const. art. V, § 8. We have interpreted that power to be a grant of distinct jurisdiction, carrying the substantive power to issue the writs named in all cases in which courts of law or equity under settled rules would have the power to issue them, whether they be necessary to enforce some jurisdiction given by other constitutional provisions or not.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.