Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 834 S.W.2d 54 - Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Walker

Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2013

10 state decisions

70199220002010decided

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, 2nd District (Fort Worth))

Relationships

Relies on Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart · Craig v. Harney · Davenport v. Garcia · Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co. · 44 Tex. Crim. 423 - Ex Parte Foster

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) an imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just resolution of their dispute, and (2) the judicial action represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm.”
    2 later decisions 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.