28 Ohio App. 3d 6 - In Re Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 46 state decisions

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

1. “A court, or judge at chambers, may summarily punish a person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Guardianship of Myers, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003) · 147 Ohio App. 3d 531 - Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc.

2. “{¶ 43} “A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt: {¶ 44} “(A) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or officer[.]””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Guardianship of Myers, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003) · 147 Ohio App. 3d 531 - Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc.

3. ““The distinction between civil and criminal contempt turns on the character and purpose of the sanction imposed. Either a fine or imprisonment, or both, may be imposed in civil or criminal contempt cases. In the civil context, however, the purpose of the sanction is coercive; that is, it is intended to force the contemnor to comply with the court’s order. * * * “A sanction for criminal contempt, by contrast, is a punishment for past refusal to obey a court order. Schrader v. Huff (1983), 8 Ohio App.3d 111 [8 OBR 146, 456 N.E.2d 587 ]. No coercive element is present. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Ohio App. 3d 432 - Elias v. Stein