Rubin’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 240 Pa. Super. 291 - Janet D. v. Carros (1976), In Re Reed (1981)
5 district · 5 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 Katchen v. Landy · Maggio v. Zeitz · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Katchen v. Landy · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to cite a person for contempt for violating a court order, two principles, each a corollary of the other, must, among other requirements, be established. The first of these is that it must be proved that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order which he is said to have violated. The corollary of this proposition is that the order which is said to have been violated must be specific and definite.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An order may be so vague or indefinite that, even though the alleged contemnor is chargeable with knowledge of such order, he cannot be punished for doing what he did in view of lack of certainty as to what it prohibited or directed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he question of summary jurisdiction will depend on whether the debtor had constructive possession of the routes at the time the petition was filed or anytime subsequent thereto. In the case of intangibles such as these routes, constructive possession usually follows ownership. In re Marsters, 101 F.2d 365 (C.A. 7, 1938), cert. denied sub nom. Herman v. Henley, 306 U.S. 663 , 59 S.Ct. 788 , 83 L.Ed. 1059 (1939) (and cases cited). Of course ownership can only be determined from an in-depth examination of the relationship, contractual and otherwise, between the ‘driver-salesmen’ and the debtor. If ownership is determined to reside in the debtor, the court will have summary jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction over the routes themselves since it has jurisdiction of the ‘debtor[’s] *' * * property, wherever located.’ Bankruptcy Act, § 311, 11 U.S.C. § 711 .” Id. 378 F.2d at 109 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Copeland
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.