Hervey v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2010
8 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 41st Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on North East Independent School District v. Aldridge · Mafrige v. Ross · Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Teer v. Duddlesten · Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• Stettner Clinic v. Burns, 2000 WL 1853383, at -2 (Tex.App.—Amarillo December 19, 2000, no pet. h.) (intent of the trial court as expressed in the order or judgment is determinative of finality; Mother Hubbard Clause is simply an indicia of that intent); • Hervey v. Flores, 975 S.W.2d 21, 25 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1998, pet. denied) (“[I]t is what the order, taken as a whole, purports to do that is critical to the inquiry. The intent contained in the order, as manifested in its language, must embrace all claims and all parties. If an otherwise outstanding claim logically cannot be brought within the grasp of the Mother Hubbard clause, the order is interlocutory.”); • Vanderwiele v. Llano Trucks, Inc., 885 S.W.2d 843, 844-45 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, no writ) (holding that a summary judgment order granted in favor of one defendant and including a standard Mother Hubbard clause did not purport to dispose of the claims against the other defendant and was thus interlocutory); and • Hinojosa v. Hinojosa, 866 S.W.2d 67, 69-70 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1993, no writ) (holding that a summary judgment made no pretense at disposing of a counterclaim raised by a party who had not yet moved for summary judgment).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ll relief requested” contained in the Mother Hubbard clause encompasses Sherleen’s counterclaim and motion for sanctions when neither the clause nor the order to which it was attached makes any reference to Sherleen or her claims. Thus, the sum of the relief granted in the orders, though granting no more relief than requested in the motions for summary judgment, is naturally less than the issues raised in the lawsuit. Hervey, 975 S.W.2d at 25 . . The order of severance, entered May 20, 1998, says that the claims involving the banks are ordered severed from the”
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.