2 Va. App. 392 - Carter v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 44 Va. App. 51 - Estate of Hackler v. Hackler (2004), 47 Va. App. 687 - George M. Epps, Sheriff of City of Petersburg, Virginia v. Commonwealth (2006)
58 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 Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Kemble v. United States · Local 333B, United Marine Division v. Commonwealth · Carter v. Commonwealth
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Contempt is defined as an act in disrespect of the court or its processes, or which obstructs the administration of justice, or tends to bring the court into disrepute.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The power to punish for contempt is inherent in, and as ancient as, courts themselves. It is essential to the proper administration of the law, to enable courts to enforce their orders, judgments and decrees, and to preserve the confidence and respect of the people without which the rights of the people cannot be maintained and enforced.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It has been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it." The record in such cases must contain more than the bare conclusion that the defendant's conduct was insolent, insulting, boisterous or the like. The actual facts upon which the court based its final conclusion must be set out. Such conclusions alone will not support a criminal contempt adjudication. The record must show facts to support proof that the contempt was committed willfully.”
2 later decisions 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.