Ong Hing v. Thurston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 state decisions

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

1. ““Any person who wilfully disobeys a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court by doing or not doing an act or thing forbidden or required, or who engages in any other wilfully contumacious conduct which obstructs the administration of justice, or which lessens the dignity and authority of the court, may be held in contempt of court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa · State v. Verdugo

2. ““[CJriminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice, Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 24 Ariz. 508 , 211 P. 576 ; civil contempt is the disobedience of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party to the litigation, Van Dyke v. Superior Court, supra . . . . Also, the same acts may be both criminal contempt and civil contempt, and quite often are. The classification of contempt as criminal, civil, direct or indirect is merely a judicial device for determining the procedure to follow in each case. We are satisfied that we are dealing with a criminal contempt as the primary purpose of respondent’s action was to punish for petitioner’s alleged disrespect to the court and attempted obstruction of justice.” 101 Ariz. at 98 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Verdugo

3. “But, as we understand section 4471, [§ 12-861] before the accused can invoke its procedure it must not only appear that his act is a criminal offense, but also that his act must consist in doing something forbidden by “lawful writ, process, order or judgment.” ... We cannot bring ourselves to think that the legislature intended that an officer of the court who had failed or refused to execute a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of such court, commanding or directing him to do something, could, when “called on the carpet” for such failure or refusal, demand a jury trial and bail. Such disobediences were evidently intended to be covered and taken care of by section 4474 [§ 12-864],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pace v. Pace