Teefey v. Teefey’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably In Re Marriage of Vanet (1976), State Ex Rel. Chassaing v. Mummert (1994)
68 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
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · State Ex Rel. Stanhope v. Pratt · State ex rel. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Bland · In re Howell
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during its session, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceeding or to impair the respect due to its authority; (2) Any breach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt its proceedings; (3) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by it; (4) Resistance willfully offered by any person to the lawful order or process of the court; (5) The contumacious and unlawful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness, or, when so sworn, to refuse to answer any legal and proper interrogatory.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Civil contempt is for the protection of a party to the litigation, the party for whose benefit the order, judgment or decree was entered. Its function is to provide a coercive means to compel the other party to the litigation to comply with relief granted to his adversary.... “Criminal contempt on the other hand does not serve the function of aiding a litigant in achieving the relief granted but is for the purpose of protecting the dignity of the court.... The power of criminal contempt springs not from the needs to protect a litigant, but from the inherent power of the courts to protect the judicial system....””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lomax v. Merritt“Civil contempt is intended to benefit a party for whom an order, judgment, or decree was entered. Its purpose is to coerce compliance with the relief grant ed.... Criminal contempt is punitive in nature and acts to protect, preserve, and vindicate the authority and dignity of the judicial system and to deter future defiance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lomax v. Merritt
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.