Purvis v. Purvis’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 824 So. 2d 604 - Dennis v. Dennis (2002), 838 So. 2d 226 - In Re Williamson (2002)
50 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 Mayberry v. Pennsylvania · Goldstein v. California · 579 So. 2d 543 - Caldwell v. Caldwell · Premeaux v. Smith · MELVIN v. State
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Direct contempt involves words spoken or actions committed in the presence of the court that are calculated to embarrass or prevent the orderly administration of justice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private party litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is civil. The contemnor may be jailed or fined for civil contempt; however, the contemnor must be relieved of the penalty when he performs the required act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]his Court proceeds ab initio to determine whether the record proves the appellant guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Hampton · Terry v. State
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.