Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 U.S. 105 - Fox v. Capital Co.

Fox v. Capital Co.’s Empirical Analysis

299 U.S. 105 · 1936

Citation profile

370
cited by 370 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

209 federal appellate · 9 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 370 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock (1988)

209 federal appellate · 9 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 12 states

9101936194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedGolub v. Guzzardi (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Alexander v. United States · Collins v. Miller · Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago

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

  1. “[A] party to a suit may not appeal an order finding or imprisoning him for the commission of a civil contempt during the pendency of the action, except in connection with some appealable order, as an interlocutory injunction, or a final judgment or decree in the civil action, or in connection with an appeal from a judgment imposing both criminal and civil sanctions”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “”...In levying the fine, the court was not acting sua sponte, or at the instance of the government through a prosecuting officer. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra; Lamb v. Cramer, supra; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107, 112 ; Michaelson v. United States, 266 U. S. 42, 64 ; Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U. S. 448, 452 . It lent a helping hand to a suppliant for aid.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[d]espite the contempt or the penalties therefor, the [underlying] proceeding may continue until its aim has been achieved.”
    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.