Waffenschmidt v. Mackay’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.2d 711 · 1985
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably United States v. Reed (1985), Procup v. Strickland (1986)
50 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Glasser v. United States · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · McGee v. International Life Insurance · United States v. United Mine Workers of America
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]onparties who reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of a district court may be subject to that court's jurisdiction if, with actual notice of the court's order, they actively aid and abet a party in violating that order.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Courts possess the inherent authority to enforce their own injunctive decrees. . . . Courts do not sit for the idle ceremony of making orders and pronouncing judgments, the enforcement of which may be flouted, obstructed, and violated with impunity, with no power in the tribunal to punish the offender.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he power of a court to make an order carries with it the equal power to punish for a disobedience of that order, and the inquiry as to the question of disobedience has been, from time immemorial, the special function of the [ordering] court .... To submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal ... would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency .... [T]he sole adjudication of contempts, and the punishments thereof [belong] exclusively ... to each respective court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.