Johnson v. Bednar’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 769 So. 2d 359 - Parisi v. Broward County (2000), 727 So. 2d 251 - Gregory v. Rice (1999)
40 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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company · Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · 471 So. 2d 1274 - Bowen v. Bowen
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]ithout authority to act promptly and independently the courts could not administer public justice or enforce the rights of private litigants." It is essential that our courts have the judicial power to enforce their orders; otherwise, judgments are only advisory. If a party can make oneself a judge of the validity of orders issued by trial courts, and by one's own act of disobedience set them aside, then our courts are devoid of power, and the judicial power, both federal and state, would be a mockery.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If compensation is intended, the fine must be based on evidence of the injured party’s actual loss, [citation omitted] However, if the purpose of imposing a fine is to coerce compliance^] the court may exercise its discretion, taking into consideration the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of a particular sanction in achieving the result desired. [ ] [[Image here]] [When the fine is imposed to coerce compliance, the] court’s task in measuring a coercive fine is not to determine what would compensate the aggrieved party, but rather the court must determine what is necessary to force the con-temnor into compliance with the court order. In making this determination the court must “consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired,” as well as “the amount of defendant’s financial resources and the consequent seriousness of the burden to that particular defendant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]ithout authority to act promptly and independently the courts could not administer public justice or enforce the rights of private litigants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.