Long v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Sy-Lene of Washington, Inc. v. Starwood Urban Retail II, LLC (2003), Cheek v. United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. (2003)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 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 Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · United States v. Armour & Co. · Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock · Local Number 93, International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland · Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) When a finding of contempt may not be made. The court may not make a finding of contempt if the alleged contemnor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (A) from the date of the support order through the date of the contempt hearing the alleged contem-nor (i) never had the ability to pay more than the amount actually paid and (ii) made reasonable effort to become or remain employed or otherwise lawfully obtain the funds necessary to make payment, or (B) enforcement by contempt is barred by limitations as to each unpaid spousal or child support payment for which the alleged contemnor does not make the proof set forth in subsection (3)(A) of this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] court’s refusal to enter a consent judgment submitted by the parties is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Moreover, while the court may either approve or deny the issuance of a consent decree, generally it is not entitled to change the terms of the agreement stipulated to by the parties.... If the court discerns a problem with a stipulated agreement, it should advise the parties of its concern and allow them an opportunity to revise the agreement.”
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 · 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.