Ex parte Hudgings’s Empirical Analysis
249 U.S. 378 · 1919
Citation profile
253 federal appellate · 50 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 526 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2013 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), In re Oliver (1948)
253 federal appellate · 50 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Royall · Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States · Glasgow v. Moyer · Johnson v. Hoy
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 526 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the conception were true, it would follow that when a court entertained the opinion that a witness was testifying untruthfully the power would result to impose a punishment for contempt with the object or purpose of exacting from the witness a character of testimony which the court would deem to be truthful; and thus it would come to pass that a potentiality of oppression and wrong would result and the freedom of the citizen when called as a witness in a court would be gravely imperiled. . . . Indeed, when the provision of the commitment directing that the punishment should continue to be enforced until the contempt, that is, the perjury, was purged, the impression necessarily arises that it was assumed that the power existed to hold the witness in confinement under the punishment until he consented to give a character of testimony which in the opinion of the court would not be perjured.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the nature of the case, of the relation which the question which it involves bears generally to the power and duty of courts in the performance of their functions, of the dangerous effect on the liberty of the citizen when called upon as a witness in a court which might result if the erroneous doctrine upon which the order under review was based were not promptly corrected * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Craig v. Hecht · Ex parte Craig““Existing witbin the limits of and sanctioned by the Constitution, the power to punish for contempt committed in the presence of the court is not controlled by the limitations, of the Constitution as to modes of accusation and methods of trial generally safeguarding the rights of the citizen.””
2 later decisions 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.