green
Positive treatment
18.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Stephen Girard v. the State of Texas
To punish a person for constructive contempt, “[d]ue process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment.” Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); see Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d at 256 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Matthew Rueben Phillips v. the State of Texas
Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re Bruce Carter
See Ex parte Jordan, 865 S.W.2d 459, 459 (Tex. 1993); Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987); Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980); In re Broughton, No. 09-09-00550-CV, 2009 WL 5276756 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 14, 2010, orig. proceeding).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re Roberto John Johnson
Ex parte Strickland , 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Markowitz , 25 S.W.3d at 3 . [1] The purpose of the written commitment order is to enforce a contempt judgment by directing imprisonment of the contemnor.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Richardson
Ex parte Hernandez, 827 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987) (orig. proceeding).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Adam Hugh Richardson
Ex parte Hernandez , 827 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Strickland , 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Anthony E. Gill
Ex parte Hernandez , 827 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Ex parte Strickland , 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Earl Steven Brown, Relator
Next, in Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding), citing Barnett , the Court again held that due process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment in order to punish for contempt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Earl Steven Brown, Relator
Next, in Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding), citing Barnett, the Court again held that due process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment in order to punish for contempt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re: Earl Steven Brown, Relator
Next, in Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding), citing Barnett , the Court again held that due process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment in order to punish for contempt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Brown
(2×)
Next, in Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987) (orig.proceeding), citing Barnett, the Court again held that due process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment in order to punish for contempt.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Andrew Littleton
See Ex parte Amaya , 748 S.W.2d 224, 224-25 (Tex. 1988); Ex parte Strickland , 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987); see also Ex parte Barnett , 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Littleton
See Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d 224, 224-25 (Tex.1988); Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987); see also Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex.1980).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re White
Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987); see also Ex parte Hardin, 161 Tex. 567 , 344 S.W.2d 152, 153 (1961).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
in Re Edward Ray Ustick
Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987); see also Ex parte Hardin, 344 S.W.2d 152, 153 , 161 Tex. 567 (1961).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Duzich v. Marine Office of America Corp.
Co., 723 S.W.2d 668, 666 (Tex.1987); Ohio Cas.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Whitehead
Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987); Ex parte Herrera, 820 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silk v. Terrill
Co., 723 S.W.2d 668, 668 (Tex.1987) (per curiam); Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119, 741 S.W.2d 533, 535 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no writ) (op. on reh’g).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Herrera
Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987) (per curiam) (contemnor’s incarceration violative of due process, because there was neither a written judgment of contempt nor written order of commitment); Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex.1980) (although commitment order referred to copy of judgment for contempt, no judgment was attached, thus rendering order void).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry v. Kroger Stores, Store No. 119
Cantu v. Western Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 723 S.W. 2d 668, 668 (Tex.1987); Bering v. Republic Bank of San Antonio, 581 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
cited
Cited "see"
in the Estate of John A. Wilson, Sr.
See Ex parte Strickland , 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding); In re Markowitz , 25 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) .
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Markowitz
See Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex.1987); see also Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex.1980).
Ex Parte Roy Clifton STRICKLAND, Relator
C-6106.
Texas Supreme Court.
Feb 11, 1987.
Samuel L. Walsh, The Woodlands, for relator., Jimmy James (Law Offices of Jimmy James), Houston, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 23 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
This is a child support habeas corpus proceeding. Roy Clifton Strickland was found in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support, and incarcerated without either a written judgment of contempt or a written order of commitment. Due process requires both a written judgment of contempt and a written order of commitment in order to punish a person for constructive contempt of court. Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex.1980); Ex parte Puckitt, 159 Tex. 438, 322 S.W.2d 597 (1959); see also Ex parte Hardin, 161 Tex. 567, 334 S.W.2d 152 (1961). Both requisites are missing in this proceeding. Because Strickland’s adjudication of contempt and incarceration is contrary to our holdings in the above cases, we grant the writ without hearing oral argument. See Ex parte Davila, 718 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.1986). In view of this conclusion, we need not address Strickland’s other grounds.
Relator is ordered discharged.