Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 F.2d 103 - Widger v. United States

Widger v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

244 F.2d 103 · 1957

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Brown v. United States (1959), United States v. Marshall (1971)

17 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

1301957196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 5

Relies on Hoffman v. United States · Emspak v. United States · Cammer v. United States · Hallinan v. United States · United States v. Rosen

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

  1. “(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that the judge saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “rule providing for punishment of con-tempts summarily must be given a narrow construction providing, as it does, for punishment without affording the accused the normal safeguards surrounding criminal prosecutions;_ It is, therefore, essential that courts proceeding summarily must be meticulously careful to observe procedural safeguards.”
    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.