In Re Yengo’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk (1982), State v. Hamm (1990)
2 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 re Oliver · Cooke v. United States · Terry · Harris v. United States · Ex Parte Barber
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f there is some evidence of the adequacy of the explanation, the judge should characterize the matter as an indirect contempt and proceed by order to show cause returnable before another judge.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The characterization of the contempt as direct or indirect should be deferred until after the attorney has an opportunity to explain his absence. If there is an adequate explanation, the matter should proceed no further. However, if the attorney refuses to explain, the judge may treat the offense as a direct contempt. ... Similarly, if the attorney offers an insulting, frivolous, or clearly inadequate explanation, both elements of the offense are in the presence of the judge, who may treat the matter as a direct contempt. Of equal importance the refusal to explain or an offensive explanation creates the need in court to deal immediately with the matter. The need for immediate adjudication and punishment outweighs the procedural safeguards that would ensue from referring the matter to another judge. If there is some evidence of the adequacy of the explanation, the judge should characterize the matter as an indirect contempt and proceed by order to show cause.... The semblance of adequacy dilutes the offensiveness of the explanation and diminishes the need for dealing instantly with the offense. If the proffered explanation may require proof of facts occurring outside the presence of the court, the better practice is to proceed before another judge. ... The competing interests create a spectrum for selecting the appropriate procedure. The determination of the procedure depends on where the explanation falls on the spectrum. Where the explanation is clearly inadequate, the need ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“offers an insulting, frivolous, or clearly inadequate explanation....”
3 later decisions 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.