MacNeil v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
236 F.2d 149 · 1956
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably 552 F. Supp. 131 - United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1983), International Business MacHines Corporation v. United States of America, International Business MacHines Corporation, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore v. United States of America, International Business MacHines Corporation v. David N. Edelstein, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southerndistrict of New York, and United States of America (1974)
30 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · McCrone v. United States · In re Nevitt · Parker v. United States · United States v. International Union
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that in a criminal contempt proceeding both a fine and imprisonment may not be imposed for a single act of contempt____ It is equally clear that both may be imposed where the same act constitutes civil and criminal contempt. So long as civil contempts are restricted to those initiated by the parties primarily in interest we see nothing objectionable in the double sentence — one remedial, the other punitive. We believe, however, that such a double sentence is not proper where the parties primarily in interest have not complained and where the trial judge, in effect, seeks to turn the remedial sentence for civil contempt into additional punishment for an offense to the public interest, If the court may accomplish this by merely adding the word "civil” to his charge of criminal contempt then the provisions of [18 Ü.S.C.] § 401 [governing criminal con-tempts] become meaningless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would appear from these authorities, and indeed from the very nature of the judicial function, that the trial court can have only a public as distinguished from a private interest in the enforcement of its own decrees. It seems to us, therefore, that regardless of what label may be appended to the proceedings by the court, any action of contempt initiated by the court of its own motion must be regarded as criminal in nature for the vindication of the court's authority and the punishment of the public wrong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It becomes the duty of the judge to take affirmative action when the lawful commands of the court are defied.”
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.