Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 PA 513 - Brocker v. Brocker

Brocker v. Brocker’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

179
cited by 179 later decisions
6
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 166 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 179 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In Re Martorano (1975), Barrett v. Barrett (1977)

9 federal appellate · 166 state decisions

6001968197019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · Green 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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Judicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings may, in a proper case, be employed for either or both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court's order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “At the time of sentencing the contempt finding was viewed in the light of a civil contempt, rather than a criminal contempt and the sentences which were imposed were made with that in mind. However, since making our findings and reviewing the applicable law regarding contempt proceedings, we are now convinced that the contempt finding must be considered criminal in nature, since the dominant purpose of the Court was at that time to vindicate the authority of the Court and also to protect the interest of the general public, i.e. to insure the safety of persons and property... In conclusion, this Court was necessarily interested in maintaining peacefulness and orderliness on the picket line. The picketing has continued now for nearly a year and there have been several incidents in which the Sheriff and State Police were called in. We have only the desire and intention of maintaining lawfulness and order in the process.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “substantial and important changed circumstances”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.