Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 F.2d 719 - Thompson v. Cleland

Thompson v. Cleland’s Empirical Analysis

782 F.2d 719 · 1986

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2025

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

11019861990200020102020decided

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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Penfield Co of California v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Lamb v. Cramer · Vuitton Fils v. Carousel Handbags

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The type of proceeding ... determines the degree of discretion which the district court may properly exercise over the course of the proceedings____ Since the rights of the complainant, not the authority of the court, are at stake in a civil contempt proceeding, the discretion of the court over the proceeding is more limited ____ If Ms. Thompson was able to establish that the defendant violated the court’s order, the court would have broad discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy to ensure future compliance, but the award of compensatory damages for past violations would not be subject to the discretion of the court.”
    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.