82 Wis. 2d 124 - State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Washington (1978), 83 Wis. 2d 808 - State v. Washington (1978)
52 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 In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Shillitani v. United States · Bloom v. Illinois · Cooke v. United States · Mayberry v. Pennsylvania
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In some instances the same conduct can constitute civil or criminal contempt. Several general rules have become well accepted. Usually a contempt action which seeks to vindicate the authority and dignity of the court is a criminal contempt, while a contempt which seeks to enforce a private right of one of the parties in an action is a civil contempt. This distinction is often expressed in the results which flow from the particular finding of contempt. If the order is coercive or remedial, the contempt is civil. If the order is purely punitive, the contempt is criminal. “The fact that civil contempts are remedial or coercive, i.e., designed to force one party to accede to another’s demand, is demonstrated by the statutory requirement that the sentences be purgeable. Civil contempt looks to the present and future and the civil contemnor holds the key to his jail confinement by compliance with the order. On the other hand, the criminal contemnor is brought to account for a completed past action, his sentences are not purgeable and are determinate. Criminal contempt is punitive. It is not intended to force the contemnor to do anything for the benefit of another party. “The distinction between the two forms of contempt is important because most of the constitutionally required bill of rights procedures and due process protections apply only to criminal contempt. With the major exception of contempt committed in the physical presence of the trial court (direct contempt), a crimina”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““However, this court has just as consistently held that this power is subject to reasonable legislative regulation: “ ‘Doubtless, this power may be regulated, and the manner of its exercise prescribed, by statute, but certainly it cannot be entirely taken away, nor can its efficiency be so impaired or abridged as to leave the court without power to compel the due respect and obedience which is essential to preserve its character as a judicial tribu nal.’ State ex rel. Attorney General v. Circuit Court for Eau Claire County, 97 Wis. 1, 8 , 72 N.W. 193 (1897). See also, Upper Lakes Shipping v. Seafarers I. Union, 22 Wis.2d 7, 17 , 125 N.W.2d 324 (1963).” State v. King, supra, at 136.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If an actual loss or injury has been produced to any party by the misconduct of the contemnor, which it is not efficacious to remedy by execution or garnishment, the court may order the defendant to pay such party a sum sufficient to compensate the party for losses, costs and expenses. . . .”
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.