Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
485 federal appellate · 90 district · 416 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,517 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America (1994), Albright v. Oliver (1994)
485 federal appellate · 90 district · 416 state decisions — followed in 40 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
reviewedUnited States ex rel. Vuitton Et Fils S.A. v. Klayminc (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 208 · 18 U.S.C. § 3772 · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Buckley v. Valeo · Berger v. United States · United States v. United Mine Workers of America
Cited together with Bloom v. Illinois · International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock
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 1,517 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ability to punish disobedience to judicial orders is regarded as essential to ensuring that the Judiciary has a means to vindicate its own authority without complete dependence on other Branches.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“decisions ... critical to the conduct of a prosecution, are all made outside the supervision of the court.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are not intended to punish conduct proscribed as harmful by the general criminal laws. Rather, they are designed to serve the limited purpose of vindicating the authority of the court. In punishing contempt, the Judiciary is sanctioning conduct that violates specific duties imposed by the court itself, arising directly from the parties’ participation in judicial proceedings.”
13 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.