10 Cal. 3d 237 - In Re Buckley’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 172 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 22 Cal. 3d 626 - Bauguess v. Paine (1978), 44 Cal. 3d 283 - Michael G. v. Superior Court (1988)
12 federal appellate · 172 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.
Relationships
Relies on Illinois v. Allen · Ungar v. Sarafite · Bloom v. Illinois · Offutt v. United States · Bridges v. State of California Times-Mirror Co
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n reviewing an adjudication of contempt, `the sole question before us is one of jurisdiction of the trial court to render the judgment under review, and in such a case the review of the evidence is limited to determining whether there was any substantial evidence to sustain the jurisdiction of the trial court.' [Citations.] More recently we said that `the responsibility of the reviewing court is merely to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to sustain the judgment and order. The power to weigh the evidence rests with the trial court.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n attorney commits a direct contémpt when he impugns the integrity of the court by statements made in open court . 527 .. We hold here that when petitioner’s argument turned from advocacy to insult, the trial court was acting properly in holding him in contempt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contempt committed in the immediate view and presence of the court ... may be treated summarily. All that is required is that an order be made reciting the facts, adjudging the person guilty and prescribing the punishment.”
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.