Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 509 F.2d 752 - United States v. Abascal

United States v. Abascal’s Empirical Analysis

509 F.2d 752 · 1975

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2004 · most notably United States v. Flynt (1985), United States v. Powers (1980)

26 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2001975198019902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 401

Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Illinois v. Allen · In re Oliver · Cooke v. United States · Terry

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

  1. ““The ability of a trial judge to compel obedience to his orders is fundamental to the proper functioning of our system of justice____ [Ljawyers are required to obey even incorrect orders; the remedy is on appeal.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The teaching of Wilson is simply that Rule 42(a) is a rule of necessity and its application is “narrowly limited.” It fills “the need for immediate penal vindication of the dignity of the court” and permits the court to act swiftly to stop conduct which amounts to intentional obstruction of court proceedings. Thus, the power to impose summary contempt exists only where there is “compelling reason for an immediate remedy,” and where there is no such need its use is inappropri- ■ ate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(m)isbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.”
    1 later decision 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.