Baddock v. Villard’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.2d 592 · 1979
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Shuffler v. Heritage Bank (1983), Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc. (1981)
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Friction Products Corp. · Ford v. Kammerer · Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon which should not be used if the court's order upon which the contempt was founded is vague or ambiguous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the court's order must set forth in specific detail an unequivocal command.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Contempt is committed when a person ‘violates an order of a court requiring in specific and definite language that a person do or refrain from doing an act.’ The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon which should not be used if the court’s order upon which the contempt is founded is vague or ambiguous. Thus, the court’s order ‘must set forth in specific detail an unequivocal command.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lelsz v. Kavanagh
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.