Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 F.3d 576 - In Re Joseph A. Thompson, Debtor. Joseph A. Thompson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

In Re Joseph A. Thompson, Debtor. Joseph A. Thompson v. Commonwealth of Virginia’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
3
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Collins v. M, New York v. Sokol (1997)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

1501994200020102020decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Kelly v. Robinson · Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · In the Matter of James Michael Zarzynski and Kathryn Kleist Zarzynskis · Hawkins v. Landmark Finance 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the assessment of costs is understood by the Commonwealth as operating hand-in-hand with the penal and sentencing goals of the criminal justice system. The practical operation of the cost-assessment can only be understood in the penal context.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The bankruptcy laws are not a haven for criminal offenders, but are designed to give relief from financial over extension.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In our view what a county expends in a criminal prosecution in the fulfillment of its statutory police power responsibilities is not “an actual pecuniary loss” to the county. It is, of course, an expenditure by the government, part of the expense of governing, but the county did not undertake the expense expecting to create a debtor-creditor relationship. In this case, the county did its duty to protect the public by convicting and punishing a law violator. There is no county pecuniary loss when the county functions as it should in the furtherance of its public responsibilities. Nor does the fact that the costs are based on what the county expended in the criminal trial convert the costs into “compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” The costs can be viewed a part of the penalty even though it is a penalty measured by the extent of certain county expenditures for the trial. As the Second Circuit once said, “bankrupts who have violated laws passed for the public good cannot escape punishment by going into bankruptcy.” In re Abramson, 210 F. 878, 880 (2d Cir.1914).”
    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.