Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development & Research Corp. (2009), Maiz v. Virani (2002)
2 federal appellate · 55 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 Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Relies on Deramus v. Thornton · Ex Parte Werblud · Ex Parte Travis and Mathews · Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. State ex rel. Cobb · Ex Parte G.O. Kimbrough
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“authorizes the trial court to order affirmative action by the judgment debtor and others to assist the judgment creditor in subjecting such non-exempt property to satisfaction of the underlying judgment”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“For appealable orders in the nature of an injunction, in which the validity of the order alleged to have been violated is itself in issue in the appeal, the appellate court alone is vested with jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive provisions by contempt. ... A court of appeals may exercise that jurisdiction by referring to the trial court the fact finding burden of hearing testimony and taking evidence, but the appellate court where the appeal is pending must exercise jurisdiction to actually issue the contempt judgment. ... The fact that a supersedeas bond has or has not been filed does not affect the vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in the appellate court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Goldblatt“for appealable orders in the nature of an injunction, in which the validity of the order alleged to have been violated is itself in issue in the appeal, the appellate court alone is vested with jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive provisions by contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roosth v. Daggett
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.