Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 IND 319 - Thistlethwaite v. State

Thistlethwaite v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1898

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
March 1998
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1998

16 state decisions

6018981900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Cartwright's Case · State v. Matthews · Huntington v. McMahon · Thompson v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Hawkins v. State

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

  1. ““Appellants insist that this proceeding is under section two of the act of 1879, being section 1019, Burns R. S. 1894 (1007 Horner’s R. S. 1897), and that they were entitled to be discharged upon said answer under the provisions of section 9 of said act, being section 1025, Burns R. S. 1894 (1013, Horner’s R. S. 1897). “This, however, is a proceeding against appellants for contempt, to enforce a civil right and remedy; and it is expressly provided by section 10 of said act, as amended (Acts 1881, p. 10), being section 1026, Burns R. S. 1894 (1014, Horner’s R. S. 1897), that said act does not apply to proceedings of this kind. “The Hamilton Circuit Court had the inherent power to punish appellants for contempt for violating said injunction. In such proceeding appellants could not purge themselves by alleging in their answer that they acted in good faith, and without any intention of violating said order of the court. The rights of the parties who obtained said injunction cannot be defeated in this way. Whether or not appellants were guilty of contempt did not depend on their intention, but upon the acts done by them.””
    1 later decision 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.