Wilson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.2d 621 · 1933
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 27 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. · Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings · Stewart v. Salamon · Grinnell v. Railroad Co.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * that contempt orders are of different kinds and are made to different ends. One kind is purely punitive, and is a sentence imposed for some act committed. Another kind is that here made. It had a coercive purpose. This was to compel appellant to testify and to enforce this, to keep him in custody until he did. These kinds of contempt orders often, as here, overlap. ****** “Every sentence so far as punitive must be definite, but so far as coercive it is not indeterminate because limited by the period of noncompliance. If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed as a coercive measure, it ends when there is compliance; but the contumacious party is still subject to a punitive sentence for 'the contempt which he has committed. It is the latter sentence which must be definite.” (Citing cases.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chitwood v. Eyman
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.