United States v. Askew’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.2d 960 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Dirden (1994), United States v. Jenkins (1983)
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Gilbert v. California · Shillitani v. United States · Smith v. Hooey · Goldstein v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court must be empowered to continue proceedings until the defendant is purged of contempt, or the efficacy of the court’s valid orders would be substantially vitiated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Longstreet
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.