Dancy v. Daggett’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson (2001), In Re Derzapf (2007)
31 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, 14th District (Houston))
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Crane v. Tunks · Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals · Dancy v. Daggett
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Whenever an attorney has two or more cases on trial dockets and is set for trial at the same time, it shall be the duty of that attorney to bring the matter to the attention of the judges concerned immediately upon learning of the conflicting settings. (2) Insofar as practicable, judges should attempt to agree on which case has priority, otherwise, the following priorities shall be observed by the judges of the respective courts. (I) Criminal Cases have priority over Civil Cases; (II) Preferentially set cases have priority over those not given any preference by statute or otherwise; (III) The earliest set case has priority over those set later; (IV) Courts in metropolitan counties should yield to courts in rural counties in all other instances of conflicting trial settings. (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present case, the trial court’s actions violated local rules regarding conflicts in docket settings, and effectively deprived Dancy of representation at the hearing on his divorce case. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to continue the proceedings until such time as Dancy’s counsel was available. We further hold that mandamus is an appropriate remedy under these facts, since the trial court’s issu-anee of temporary orders is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex.Fam. Code § 11.11(g).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.