Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 W. Va. 175 - Hendershot v. Handlan

162 W. Va. 175 - Hendershot v. Handlan’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
July 1999
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 1999 · most notably D.D. v. M.T. (1988), 167 W. Va. 411 - State v. Daggett (1981)

23 state decisions

230197819801990decided

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 Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · In re Oliver · Bloom v. Illinois · Cooke v. United States

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

  1. “The courts and the judges thereof may issue attachment for contempt and punish them summarily only in the following cases: (a) Misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct or interrupt the administration of justice; (b) violence or threats of violence to a judge or officer of the court, or to a juror, witness, or party going to, attending or returning from the court, for or in respect of any act or proceeding had, or to be had, in such court; (c) misbehavior of an officer of the court, in his official character; (d) disobedience to or resistance of any officer of the court, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the said court. No court shall, without a jury, for any such contempt as is mentioned in subdivision (a) of this section, impose a fine exceeding fifty dollars, or imprison more than ten days. But in any such case the court may impanel a jury (without an indictment or any formal pleading) to ascertain the fine or imprisonment proper to be inflicted, and may give judgment according to the verdict. No court shall impose a fine for contempt, unless the defendant be present in court, or shall have been served with a rule of the court to show cause on some certain day, and shall have failed to appear and show cause. W. Va. Code, §61-5-26 [1923].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““1. A person, although not a party to a proceeding, may be charged with contempt for the violation of a court’s order entered therein if he has actual knowledge of such order and is acting in concert or privity with a party. “2. One may be charged with contempt for violating a court’s order, of which he has actual knowledge, notwithstanding that at the time of the violation the order had not yet been formally drawn up.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The attachment herein is merely the process of the court, and serves the same purpose as a warrant or other writ whereby an accused is apprehended and held for trial. The order directing the attachment does not purport to find the petitioners guilty, but extends to them an opportunity to be heard....”
    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.