Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2013
20 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 Life Savers Corp. v. Curtiss Candy Co. · 4 Utah 2d 344 - Sprague v. Boyles Bros. Drilling Co. · 14 Utah 2d 118 - Powers v. Taylor · Parish v. McConkie, District Judge
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to justify a finding of contempt and the imposition of a jail sentence, it must appear by clear and convincing proof that: (1), the party knew what was required of him; (2), that he had the ability to comply; and (3), that he wilfully and knowingly failed and refused to do so. [Citations omitted]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] complainant makes a prima facie case of contempt by showing failure to comply with the judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant failed to make any payments after August 29, 1941, whereupon the court issued an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with the order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hall v. Hall
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.