Floyd v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 state decisions

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

1. “If the sanction is a fine, it is remedial and civil if paid to the complainant even though the contemnor has no opportunity to purge himself of the fine.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. Miller · Ex Parte Kent

2. “Courts, by exercising their contempt power, can award attorney's fees under a compensatory contempt theory. Harris-Jenkins v. Nissan Car Mart, Inc., 348 S.C. 171, 178-79 , 557 S.E.2d 708, 711-12 (Ct.App.2001). Compensatory contempt seeks to reimburse the party for the costs it incurs in forcing the non-complying party to obey the court’s orders. "In a civil contempt proceeding, a contemnor may be required to reimburse a complainant for the costs he incurred in enforcing the court’s prior order, including reasonable attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees is not a punishment but an indemnification to the party who instituted the contempt proceeding." Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 114 , 502 S.E.2d 86, 90 (1998); Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 345 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 592 (Ct.App. 1997) ("A compensatory contempt award maj' include attorney fees.”); Curlee v. Howie, 277 S.C. 377, 386-87 , 287 S.E.2d 915 , 919-20 (1982) ("Compensatory contempt is a money award for the [Wife] when the [Husband] has injured the [Wife] by violating a previous court order.... Included in the actual loss are the costs of defending and enforcing the court’s order, including litigation costs and attorney's fees.”). The court is not required to provide the contemnor with an opportunity to purge himself of these attorney's fees in order to hold him in civil contempt. Floyd v. Floyd, 365 S.C. 56, 76 , 615 S.E.2d 465, 476 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Poston, 331 S.C. at 111-15 , 502 S.E.2d at 88-91 ). "[T]h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abate v. Abate

3. “[Cjourts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates.... “The power to punish for con-tempts is inherent in all courts. Its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders, and writs of the courts; and consequently to the due administration of justice. The moment the courts of the United States were called into existence and invested with jurisdiction over any subject, they became possessed of this power.” And such is the recognized doctrine in reference to the powers of the courts of the several states.... “The power to punish for contempt is inherent in the nature and constitution of a court. It is a power not derived from any statute, but arising from necessity; implied, because it is necessary to the exercise of all other powers.” Without such power ... the administration of the law would be in continual danger of being thwarted by the lawless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. Miller