Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 F.3d 1248 - Wright v. Nichols

Wright v. Nichols’s Empirical Analysis

80 F.3d 1248 · 1996

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Caviness v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. (1997), United States v. Guerra (1997)

12 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1301996200020102020decided

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 United States v. Olano · United States v. Atkinson · International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell · Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. · J. Gordon Turnbull, Inc. v. Commissioner

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

  1. “'means a deliberate or intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent, or negligent violation of any order,'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We review the District Court's decision to enter a contempt order for abuse of discretion, giving plenary review to conclusions of law and reviewing factual findings for clear error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
    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.