Ex Parte Goodman’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. “In any enforcement proceeding in which contempt of court or a finding of violation of a probation imposed in prior contempt proceedings is sought, the court shall first determine whether incarceration of the [alleged contemner] is a possible result of the proceedings. If incarceration is possible, the court shall inform a[n] [alleged contemner] who is not represented by an attorney of his right to be represented and his right to the appointment of an attorney if he is indigent. If the [alleged contemner] claims indigency and asks for appointment of an attorney, the court shall require him to file an affidavit and may call witnesses and hear any relevant testimony or other evidence to determine the question of indigency....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex Parte Martinez

2. “Because contempt proceedings are triggered by actions which defy the state’s authority and entail possible penal sanctions, Texas courts have consistently held that alleged constructive con-temnors are entitled to procedural due process protections before they may be held in contempt. [[Image here]] We perceive no meaningful distinction between an individual’s rights which are at stake in a constructive criminal contempt hearing under article 1911a and those at stake in an ordinary criminal trial where confinement is a possible penal sanction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cudd v. Bass

3. “[i]t is settled law in this State that when an indigent is charged with contempt, is not represented by counsel and has not intelligently waived the right to assistance of counsel, a court may not, without violating the constitutional right to assistance of counsel, impose imprisonment as a punishment for disobedience of a child support order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Gonzales