Muniz v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
244 federal appellate · 27 district · 182 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 662 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Ingraham v. Wright (1977), Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979)
244 federal appellate · 27 district · 182 state decisions — followed in 26 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
reviewedRoy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 10, Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, Ibtcwha, and James R. Muniz, Roy O. Hoffman, Director, Region 20, Nlrb v. San Francisco Typographical Union Local No. 21, Etc., Defendants (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 18 U.S.C. § 1 · 18 U.S.C. § 3692 · 18 U.S.C. § 402 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400 · 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act)
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. Bass · Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Bloom v. Illinois
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 662 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e cannot accept the proposition that a contempt must be considered a serious crime under all circumstances where the punishment is a fine of more than $500, unaccompanied by imprisonment. It is one thing to hold that deprivation of an individual’s liberty beyond a six-month term should not be imposed without the protections of a jury trial, but it is quite another to suggest that, regardless of the circumstances, a jury is required where any fine greater than $500 is contemplated. From the standpoint of determining the seriousness of the risk and the extent of the possible deprivation faced by a contemnor, imprisonment and fines are intrinsically different.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the historic rule that state and federal courts have the constitutional power to punish any [pety] criminal contempt without a jury trial.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Passmore · Ex Parte Lopez“it has long been a “familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intent of its makers.” * * * To read a substantial change in accepted practice into a revision of the Criminal Code without any support in the legislative history of that revision is insupportable. * * * “It will not be inferred that the legislature, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their policy, unless such an intention be clearly expressed.””
3 later decisions 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.