Case Citator › Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas

Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
810 S.W.2d 738
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
80 of 80
Citing cases (total)
180
Treatment dates
2004
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas has been abrogated in part: all 80 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. The Supreme Court of Texas in In re Sheshtawy displaced Schultz's rule that only the appellate court could exercise contempt jurisdiction over an injunctive order whose validity was at issue on appeal, holding instead that either the trial court or the appellate court may hear a contempt motion when a final judgment has not been superseded or stayed.
More on how this was screened

Sheshtawy did not disturb Schultz's separate turnover-order holdings, which the other reviewed opinions continued to apply. Those opinions otherwise reported Sheshtawy's higher-court act, discussed unrelated statutory changes, or contained treatment language in a party brief. Duplicate copies of the same opinion were reviewed separately.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

180 later cases cite Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas; 80 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court of Texas abrogated Schultz's exclusive-appellate-court contempt rule, holding that either the trial court or the appellate court may hear a contempt motion concerning an unsuperseded, unstayed final judgment.

    In re Sheshtawy · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    This Court, however, squarely held in Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas that only a court of appeals has contempt power when “the validity of the order alleged to have been violated is itself in issue in the appeal” and the order is “in the nature of an injunction.” ... In examining our decisions, particularly Boniface and Schultz, we are unable to discern a compelling reason for withdrawing a trial court’s authority to enforce a final judgment pending appeal when that judgment has not been superseded or stayed and no statute or rule of procedure removes the trial court’s authority. ... Accordingly, we hold that when a final judgment has not been superseded or stayed pending an appeal, either the trial court or the court of appeals may entertain a motion for contempt.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace