Ex Parte Hacker’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2017
2 federal appellate · 8 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 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Thornhill v. Alabama · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Schneider v. State · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the settled law in Alabama that common law certiorari is the remedy to review a judgment or decree holding persons guilty of contempt, who are not imprisoned, and if imprisoned, habeas corpus is the remedy. Wetzel v. Bessemer Bar Association, 242 Ala. 164 , 5 So.2d 722 ; Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272 , 50 So. 218 ; Bankston v. Lakeman, 219 Ala. 508 , *Page 232 122 So. 819 ; Ex parte Hill, 229 Ala. 501 , 158 So. 531 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is the generally accepted rule that a defendant in an injunction proceeding may not be held liable as for a civil contempt for the violation of the terms of the injunction which is thereafter reviewed, dissolved, or otherwise terminated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A proceeding for contempt is sui generis, being neither a”
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.