In the Matter of Criminal Contempt of Thomas C McConnell’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
199 federal appellate · 18 district · 169 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 488 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell (1994), Codispoti v. Pennsylvania (1974)
199 federal appellate · 18 district · 169 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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
reviewedParmelee Transportation Company, a Delaware Corporation v. John L. Keeshin, in the Matter of Criminal Contempt of Thomas C. McConnell (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Offutt v. United States · Terry · Radovich v. National Football League · Nye v. United States
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 488 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)he arguments of a lawyer in presenting his client's case strenuously and persistently cannot amount to a contempt of court so long as the lawyer does not in some way create an obstruction which blocks the judge in the performance of his judicial duty.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An obstruction to the performance of judicial duty resulting from an act done in the presence of the court is, then, the characteristic upon which the power to punish for contempt must rest. This being true, it follows that the presence of that element must clearly be shown in every case where the power to punish for contempt is exerted * * *.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Brown · Hampton v. Hanrahan“before the drastic procedures of the summary contempt power may be invoked to replace the protections of ordinary constitutional procedures there must be an actual obstruction of justice....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Pilsbury · Hudson v. Jenkins
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.