347 So. 2d 883 - Lambert v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2008
19 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 State ex rel. Duffy v. Civil District Court · Lambert v. Heirs of Adams · Allen v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. · Junius Hart Piano House, Ltd. v. Ingman · Roy v. Berard
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... First, the object and purpose of a contempt proceeding is to vindicate the authority and dignity of the court. It is not designed for the benefit of the litigants, even though infliction of punishment for contempt may inure to the benefit of the mover in the contempt rule. State ex rel. Duffy and Behan v. Civil District Court for Parish of Orleans. 112 La. 182 , 36 So. 315 (1904) ; Robertson v. Robertson, 258 So.2d 125 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1972) . Second, unless a litigant wilfully disobeys a direct order of the court issued prior to the contempt rule, he should not be held in contempt, even if his acts tend to frustrate the opposing litigant. State ex rel. Duffy and Behan, supra . Third, proceedings for contempt must be strictly construed, and the policy of our law does not favor extending their scope. Roy v. Berard, 227 La. 86 , 78 So.2d 519 (1955) ; Junius Hart Piano House v. Ingman, 119 La. 1017 , 44 So. 850 (1907) . Fourth, as a general rule, contempt proceedings should not be resorted to where other specific remedies are provided by law. State ex rel. Duffy and Behan, supra ; In re State ex rel. Hero, 36 La.Ann. 352 (1884) ; Junius Hart Piano House v. Ingman, supra ."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Any of the following acts constitutes a constructive contempt of court: . . . . . (2) Wilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court; ..."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority. "Contempts of court are of two kinds, direct and constructive." LSA-C.C.P. art. 224 provides for constructive contempt: "A constructive contempt of court is any contempt other than a direct one. "Any of the following acts constitutes a constructive contempt of court: * * * * * * (2) Wilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court;"”
2 later decisions 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.