116 Ill. App. 3d 695 - People v. Mowery’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably 155 Ill. App. 3d 85 - In Re Marriage of Betts (1987), 211 Ill. 2d 456 - City of Urbana v. Andrew N.B. (2004)
45 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · 51 Ill. 2d 296 - People v. Javaras · People v. Gholson · 5 Ill. 2d 222 - People v. Wilcox · 83 Ill. App. 3d 951 - People v. Patrick
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Thirdly, and most significantly, the written order of commitment which supplants the docket entry is in the form of an ordinary mittimus. It recites that the defendant was found guilty by `verdict' and directs that he be incarcerated for 158 days for `contempt.' Even under the most liberal construction this document is fatally deficient. ( Eastman; Ill. L. & Prac. Contempt. ) It does not show the jurisdiction of the court, it does not recite the facts upon which the contempt was based ( Wilcox ), it does not find that the conduct was wilful, and most importantly it does not provide any means whereby the defendant may purge himself." Mowery, 116 Ill. App.3d at 704 , 452 N.E.2d at 370 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eagan v. Ayd · People v. Douglass“"In general, criminal contempts are aimed at vindicating the authority and dignity of the court and the penalties are punitive; civil contempts are remedial, coercive and punitive. ( Gholson. ) One of the chief characteristics of civil contempt is that the contemnor must `hold the key to the cell,' i.e., he must have it within his power to purge himself by complying with the court's order. In 17 C.J.S. Contempt sec. 93, at 268-69 (1963), it is stated: `If imprisonment is imposed for civil contempt it must ordinarily be coercive or remedial in nature rather than punitive. Imprisonment for civil contempt usually is not for a definite term, but the party in contempt stands committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the order of the court. It is for this reason that in civil contempt it is stated that the contemnor carries the key of his prison in his pocket.' In Eastman v. Dole (1919), 213 Ill. App. 364, 370 , the appellate court stated flatly, `Any order prescribing a fine or imprisonment, or both, in a case of civil contempt should be made conditional upon compliance with the terms of the original order.' See generally 12 Ill. L. & Prac. Contempt sec. 80 (1955)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ordinarily we would remand to the trial court for further proceedings. However, as we have indicated above, the defendant’s period of probation expired in October 1982 and on that date the trial court lost jurisdiction of the matter. There is no provision in the statute for the period of probation being tolled upon the filing of a rule as is the case upon filing a petition to revoke. The trial court could take no further action in the matter ***.” People v. Mowery (1983), 116 Ill. App. 3d 695, 704 , 452 N.E.2d 363, 370 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.