Ex Parte Werblud’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 100 state decisions

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

1. “"The purpose of civil contempt is remedial and coercive in nature. A judgment of civil contempt exerts the judicial authority of the court to persuade the contemnor to obey some order of the court where such obedience will benefit an opposing litigant. Imprisonment is conditional upon obedience and therefore the civil contemnor `carries the keys of [his] prison in [his] own pocket.' . . . In other words, it is civil contempt when one `may procure his release by compliance with the provisions of the order of the court.' Ex Parte Hosken, 480 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1972). This is the settled rule in Texas. Ex parte De Wees, 146 Tex. 564 , 210 S.W.2d 145, 147 (1948). "Criminal contempt on the other hand is punitive in nature. The sentence is not conditioned upon some promise of future performance because the contemnor is being punished for some completed act which affronted the dignity and authority of the court . . . This rule was well expressed in Ex Parte Hosken at 23: "`Where the primary purpose of the proceeding is to vindicate public authority, the proceeding is usually denominated criminal. The action is punitive in nature.. . . Ordinarily, the punishment is fixed and definite and no subsequent voluntary compliance on the part of the defendant can enable him to avoid punishment for his past acts.'"”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Stringer · In Re RED

2. “MR. BROWN [attorney for relator]: Your Honor, the Respondent, Aubrey Jerald Gordon, most respectfully presents to the court a Motion to Set Aside the Show Cause Order. . . . The Show Cause Order itself, in essence, says, ‘Aubrey Jerald Gordon is to appear this date and time in this court to show cause why he should not be held in and punished for contempt of this court for his conduct in refusing to comply with this court’s Temporary Restraining Order and Order Appointing Temporary Receiver.’ [The T.R.O.] . . . expired by its terms on the face of the Order at 9:00 o’clock A.M. on the 6th day of July, 1978. So that is the life of that restraining order. . The Motion for Contempt alleges acts occurring subsequent to the death of that order. It is impossible for him to be in contempt of these allegations of the Restraining Order and we would move the Show Cause Order be set aside, Your Honor. THE COURT: The only thing set for today is the Motion for Contempt? MR. BROWN: That is it, the particular Order to Show Cause. MR. HARRIS [Attorney for the receiver]: Your Honor, there was entered on July the 6th, an order, agreed Order of Temporary Injunction, ordering a temporary receivership; and let me show the court the Order. The application, the Show Cause Order by error refers back to the T.R.O. and not this one [temporary injunction]. This is the one we are here on today, . MR. BROWN: If it please the court, this is a contemptible proceeding this morning and as such, it has fine an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Gordon

3. “"Werblud was charged with criminal contempt and his attorney correctly asserted his client's privilege against self-incrimination as a reason that he should not have been sworn and compelled to testify at all."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Stringer