Henry v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Michigan v. Long · Taylor v. Illinois · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock · Pennell v. City of San Jose
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The punishment for indirect contempt may be remedial to coerce the defendant's behavior, or it may be penal to punish the defendant for disobedient or disorderly behavior. The legislature has provided for a fine and imprisonment as punishment for both direct contempt and indirect contempt. If the imprisonment is for a definite period of time, its purpose is penal and cannot be shortened by compliance or by a promise to comply with a court order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. Barrow“is the willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by [the] court. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“failure to comply with an order for child support, child support arrears, or other support,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.