United States v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 650 · 1987
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988), United States v. Slaughter (1990)
19 federal appellate · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 18 U.S.C. § 6002 · 28 U.S.C. § 1826
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson · Montana v. United States · United States v. Calandra · Brown v. Ohio
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The double jeopardy clause is not implicated in such cases because a civil contempt proceeding, unlike a criminal contempt proceeding, is not a 'jeopardy' within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause. ... Because criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense, a criminal contempt proceeding clearly constitutes a 'jeopardy of life or limb' within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause. In contrast, a civil contempt sanction is coercive or remedial in nature; its purpose is only to compel compliance with a court order, or to compensate an injured party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. State“[T]he Supreme Court has long held on several different occasions that the imposition of civil and criminal contempt does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[R]equiring resentencing when the record is clear that the sentencing judge did not rely on a contested matter does not further the purpose of Rule 32(c)(3)(D).”
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.