77 Ohio App. 3d 257 - In Re Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably State v. Jenkins (1997), 110 Ohio App. 3d 475 - In Re Contempt of Morris (1996)
51 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Brewer v. Williams · In re Oliver · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Hamilton v. Alabama
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems clear that under the rules of Cooke and Oliver a summary proceeding is not authorized simply because the conduct constitutes direct contempt. Even if the external facts are clear because they took place in the presence of the judge, the effect of the contumacious conduct must create a ‘need for speed’ to immediately suppress the court-disrupting misbehavior and restore order to the proceedings. * * * Absent that need, an evidentiary hearing is required even though the contempt is ‘direct.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, the locus of the contumacious act or acts must be such that the determinative *Page 7 determinative issues of the offense are known to the court personally. Under those circumstances, because the `external facts' of the contempt are known, no fact-finding determination is required and a summary proceeding is appropriate. {¶ 21}”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘A court, or a judge at chambers, may summarily punish a person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice.’ “However, this power to punish summarily is limited in two ways. tt * ❖ * “Second, the nature or quality of the contumacious act must be such that the orderly and effective conduct of the court’s business requires its immediate suppression and punishment. In re Oliver (1948), 333 U.S. 257 , 68 S.Ct. 499 , 92 L.Ed. 682 . The particular conduct must create ‘an open threat to the orderly procedure of the court’ such that if ‘not instantly suppressed and punished, demoralization of the court’s authority will follow.’ Cooke v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 517, at 536 , 45 S.Ct. 390, at 395 , 69 L.Ed. 767, at 773 . In authorizing exercise of the summary power to punish, the Oliver court ‘gave no encouragement to its expansion beyond the suppression and punishment of the court disrupting misconduct which alone justified its exercise.’ Id., 333 U.S. at 274 , 68 S.Ct. at 508 , 92 L.Ed. at 695 . Further, the limits of the contempt authority are, in general, ‘the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.’ Id., quoting Ex Parte Terry (1888), 128 U.S. 289 , 9 S.Ct. 77 , 32 L.Ed. 405 , citing Anderson v. Dunn (1821), 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 , 5 L.Ed. 242 . “It seems clear that under the rules of Cooke and Oliver a summary proceeding is not authorized simply because the conduct constitutes direct con”
1 later decision 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.