30 Ohio App. 3d 219 - In Re McGinty’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2025
23 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
Relies on Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. · 56 Ohio St. 2d 35 - State v. Johnson · City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati District Council 51 · 61 Ohio App. 2d 185 - State v. Conliff
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The first distinction is between criminal and civil contempt which are distinguished by the character and purpose of the punishment issued to the contemnor. Brown v. Executive 200, Inc. (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 250 , 18 O.O. 3d 446, 416 N.E. 2d 610 . The purpose of civil contempt citation is to coerce whereas the purpose of criminal contempt is to punish: "'Therefore, to determine if the sanctions in the instant cause were criminal or civil in nature, it is necessary to determine the purpose behind each sanction: was it to coerce the appellees to obey the consent judgment decree, or was it to punish them for past violations?' Id. at 254 , 18 O.O. 3d at 449, 416 N.E. 2d at 613 . "Criminal contempt may be direct or indirect. Indirect contempt is that which is committed outside the presence of the court. State v. Jaffrin (App. 1956), 74 Ohio Law Abs. 577 , 2 O.O. 2d 486, 136 N.E. 2d 436 . Direct contempt is an act of 'of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice.' (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2705.01. "Direct contempt may be summarily punished. R.C. 2705.01 states in full: "'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.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““As explained above, the purpose of a criminal contempt penalty is to vindicate the authority of the court. Appellant’s flagrant disregard of a court order, his complete reluctance to acknowledge any wrongdoing and his designation of the charges as ‘preposterous’ are a clear indication appellant was not proceeding in the deferential manner required of an officer of the court. Under these circumstances the court did not err in imposing a sanction upon appellant which would be effective in instilling the respect and proper decorum required of an attorney representing any party in a court of law.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.