Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 U.S. 66 - Yates v. United States

Yates v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

489
cited by 489 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

202 federal appellate · 6 district · 180 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 489 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Benton v. Maryland (1969), Bloom v. Illinois (1968)

202 federal appellate · 6 district · 180 state decisions — followed in 25 states

15501957196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Yates v. United States · Offutt v. United States · Terry

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

  1. “[t]he slight modification on [the third day] of the area of refusal did not carry beyond the boundaries already established.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[C]ivil and criminal sentences serve[ ] distinct purposes, the one coercive, the other punitive and deterrent; that the same act may give rise to these distinct sanctions presents no double jeopardy problem.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Though there was but one contempt, imposition of the civil sentence for the refusals of June 26 is no barrier to criminal punishment for the refusals of June 30. The civil and criminal sentences served distinct purposes, the one coercive, the other punitive and deterrent; that the same act may give rise to these distinct sanctions presents no double jeopardy problem. Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148 , 150, 76 S.Ct. 219 , 220, 100 L.Ed. 149 (1956); United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258 , 299, 67 S.Ct. 677 , 698, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Clearly, if the civil and criminal sentences could have been imposed simultaneously by the court on June 26, as the United, Mine Workers case holds, it scarcely can be argued that the court’s failure to invoke the criminal sanction until June 30 was fatal to its criminal contempt powers. Indeed, the more salutary procedure would appear to be that a court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues. Had the court imposed a civil sentence and found petitioner guilty of criminal contempt on June 26, it could have postponed imposition of a criminal sentence until termination of the principal case. The distinction between that procedure and the one followed here is entirely formal.” (Footnote omitted.)”
    2 later decisions 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.