Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 Ill. 2d 546 - People v. Denson

59 Ill. 2d 546 - People v. Denson’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
June 1985
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Shillitani v. United States · The People v. Redlich · 21 Ill. 2d 407 - PEOPLE EX REL. CHI. BAR ASS'N v. Barasch · People v. McWeeney · People v. Spain

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

  1. ““Contempt proceedings, while usually called civil or criminal, are, strictly speaking, neither. They may best be characterized as sui generis, and may partake of the characteristics of both. [Citations.] Proceedings in the nature of criminal contempt have been defined as those directed to preservation of the dignity and authority of the court, while it has been said that civil contempts are those prosecuted to enforce the rights of private parties and to compel obedience to orders or decrees for the benefit of opposing parties. [Citations.] These principles, while seemingly plain and adequate, are most difficult to apply. The line of demarcation in many instances is indistinct and even imperceptible. [Citation.] A further guide may be found in the purpose of punishment. Imprisonment for criminal contempt is inflicted as a punishment for that which has been done, whereas imprisonment for civil contempt is usually coercive and, as was said in the case of In re Nevitt (8th Cir.), 117 Fed. 448, 461 , ‘he [the contemnor] carries the key of his prison in his own pocket.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.