Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 741 S.W.2d 366 - Ex Parte Price

Ex Parte Price’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2017

22 state decisions

1001987199020002010decided

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 14th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · Lovell v. City of Griffin · Grosjean v. American Press 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The purpose of [article one, section eight] is to preserve what we call “liberty of speech” and “the freedom of the press,” and at the same time hold all persons accountable to the law for the misuse of that liberty or freedom. Responsibility for the abuse of the privilege is as fully emphasized by its language as that the privilege itself shall be free from all species of restraint. But the abuse of the privilege ... shall be dealt with in no other way. It is not to be remedied by denial of the right to speak, but only by appropriate penalties for what is wrongfully spoken. Punishment for the abuse of the right, not prevention of its exercise, is what the provision contemplates.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “It is an accepted rule of law that for a person to be held in contempt for disobeying a court decree, the decree must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms so that such person will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.