Mitchell v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Armstrong v. Squadrito (1998), Van Winkle v. Nash (2002)
4 federal appellate · 52 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 International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell · Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith · Cullison v. Medley · DeHaan v. DeHaan · Denny v. State Ex Inf. Brady
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a summary of the witnesses' testimony is not a statement of the facts within the meaning of the appellate rules.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[w]here the conduct is categorized as civil contempt or criminal, the trial court must still provide the defendant with the same statutorily prescribed due process requirements”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) In all cases of indirect contempts, the person charged with indirect contempt is entitled: (1) before answering the charge; or (2) being punished for the contempt; to be served with a rule of the court against which the contempt was alleged to have been committéd. (b) The rule to show cause must: (1) clearly and distinctly set forth the facts that are alleged to constitute the contempt; (2) specify the time and place of the facts with reasonable certainty, as to inform the defendant of the nature and circumstances of the charge against the defendant; and (3) specify a time and place at which the defendant is required to show cause, in the court, why the defendant should not be attached and punished for such contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.