Baier v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Generally, in distinguishing civil from criminal contempt, we look at the sanction and its nature and purpose, rather than the conduct. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 , 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); State v. Stokes, 240 N.W.2d 867 (N.D.1976). If the sanction’s purpose is coercive, that is, to induce performance of an act primarily for another’s benefit, the contempt is civil. State v. Stokes, supra. If the contemptuous conduct has been concluded and the purpose of the sanction is to punish the offender and vindicate the authority of the court, the contempt is criminal. Id. Merely because a coercive sanction incidentally benefits another person does not change the contempt from civil to criminal. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 , 31 S.Ct. 492 , 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). So too, a punitive sanction that incidentally coerces does not transform criminal contempt into civil contempt. Id. “Usually, in civil contempt, the sanction is conditional in nature so that contemnors carry ‘ “the keys of their prison in their own pockets” ’ and stand committed unless and until they perform an affirmative act. Shillitani, supra, 384 U.S. at 368 , 86 S.Ct. at 1534 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 626 , quoting In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (8th Cir.1902). Conversely, because the purpose of the sanction for criminal contempt is to punish the offender and vindicate the authority of the court, the sanction for criminal contempt is, ordinarily, unconditional. Gompers, supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hartman v. Hartman · State v. Mertz

2. “"A criminal contempt, except as provided in Subdivision (a) of this Rule, shall be prosecuted on notice. The notice shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and describe it as such. The notice shall be given orally by the judge in open court in the presence of the defendant or, on application of the prosecuting attorney or of an attorney appointed by the court for that purpose, by an order to show cause or an order of arrest. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury as provided in Rule 23(a). He is entitled to release from custody as provided in Rule 46. If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent. Upon a verdict or finding of guilt, the court shall enter an order fixing the punishment.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hartman v. Hartman · Baier v. Hampton

3. ““Direct contempt involves conduct committed in the immediate view and presence of the court and may be punished summarily.... Indirect contempt involves conduct that occurs outside the immediate view and presence of the court and requires that the accused be afforded notice and a fair hearing.... “If the court has not personally observed the essential elements of the offense, or if the accused offers an excuse relating to matters outside the knowledge of the court, due process requires that the accused be afforded notice and a full opportunity to explain and defend.... Any doubt as to whether the contempt is direct or indirect should be resolved in favor of complying with the procedures for indirect contempt because the summary procedures for direct contempt are less favored than the procedural protections required for indirect contempt.... ⅝ ⅜ ⅜! ⅜! ‡ ⅝ “Generally, prior perjury and false swearing, although occurring in court and witnessed by a judge, constitute indirect and not direct contempt, unless the falsity of the statement is admitted by the contemnor.... If the perjury or false swearing is not admitted and extrinsic evidence is necessary to establish the conduct or excusing circumstances, summary proceedings are inappropriate.” [Citations omitted.]”

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