Wilson v. Holliday’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pappas v. Pappas · Jones v. State · Thrower v. State Ex Rel. Bureau of Support Enforcement · Johnson v. Johnson · Lynch v. Lynch
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is clear and unambiguous, requiring no construction. It provides two, succinct alternatives for the court to select from should a contemnor fail to appear in a civil contempt proceeding: the court may direct that a contemnor be arrested and brought before the court for the scheduled hearing, or the court may hold the hearing in his or her absence. Affording the rule its plain meaning, it clearly does not speak to whether a, court may order that the contemnor be arrested and detained while awaiting a subsequent hearing or set an unreasonable bond amount to secure via incarceration the contemnor’s attendance. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... If the alleged contemnor fails to appear personally at the time and place set by the court, the court may enter an order dii'ecting a sheriff or other peace officer to take custody of and bring the alleged contemnor before the court or judge designated in the order. If the alleged contemnor in a civil contempt proceeding fails to appear in person or by counsel at the time and place set by the court, the court may proceed ex parte.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Furthermore, because the purpose of imprisoning the contemnor is remedial, ... i.e., “to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to a suit and to compel obedience to orders and decrees primarily to benefit such parties,” ... [the Court of Appeals] consistently, and emphatically, has held that a civil contemnor may be incarcerated only when he or she has been found to have “the present ability to purge the contempt.” . ..”
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.