Howell v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 53 · 1975
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Del Vecchio v. Illinois Department of Corrections (1994), Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc. (1987)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Edelman v. Jordan · Brown v. Allen · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where there [is] actually some incentive [for the judge] to find one way or the other, i.e., financial considerations [ Ward, 93 S.Ct. 80 ; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); Aetna, 106 S.Ct. 1580 ] or previous participation by the trying judge in the proceedings at which the contempt occurred [ In re Murchison, 75 S.Ct. 623 ; Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 , 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-05 , 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 , 91 S.Ct. 499, 504-05 , 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971)].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“These communications [the ones between the two judges] ... involved trial procedure and there is no evidence that they had any effect on the trial judge’s determination of the merits of the case. The legal determination that Howell’s conduct was contemptuous appears only to have been made from information learned at the hearing, [citation omitted] The leading cases cited by Howell, Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 , 93 S.Ct. 80 , 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 , 75 S.Ct. 623 , 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927), are different from the case sub judice. They involved situations where there was actually some incentive to find one way or the other, i.e., financial considerations (Ward & Tumey) or previous participation by the trying judge in the proceedings at which the contempt occurred (Murchison). In this case, no such incentive is evident, and the record does not otherwise support Howell’s contention that he was denied a trial by an impartial tribunal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The leading cases ... involved situations where there was actually some incentive to find one way or another, i.e., financial considerations ... or previous participation by the trying judge in the proceedings at which the contempt occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Walberg v. Israel
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.