Rogers v. Webster’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 607 · 1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. Yacoubian (1994), Hiley v. United States (1986)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Malloy v. Hogan · Spevack v. Klein · United States v. Rylander · Garner v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile wilfulness is not an element of civil contempt, the contemnor’s state of mind, such as his good faith or his reliance on the advice of counsel, is relevant in mitigation of any penalty”) (citing TWM Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Dura Corp., 722 F.2d 1261, 1273 (6th Cir.1983)). 7 . See also Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404, 1407 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the Fifth Amendment privilege is invoked in a judicial proceeding, the person claiming its protection ordinarily ‘receives a judicial ruling at that time on the validity of his claim, and he has an opportunity to reconsider it before being [penalized] for refusal to answer.’ Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 663 , 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1187 , 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976). Not affording one who asserts the privilege an opportunity to answer, once his claim of privilege has been rejected, is to penalize him merely for asserting the privilege.” (Emphasis added). We turn to the details of each incident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““when a defendant in a civil proceeding invokes properly his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in lieu of answering the averments contained in the pleading of his adversary, the District Court should treat his claim of privilege as the equivalent of a specific denial and put the plaintiff to his proof of the matter covered by the ‘denial.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.