Crooks v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 1562 · 1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Stump v. Sparkman · Forrester v. White · Bradley v. Fisher · Pargoud v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since Crooks and Holmes disobeyed an administrative order, Judge Maynard had the authority to hold them in contempt. 8 Appellants argue that the summary exercise of the power to sanction for contempt is valid only”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crooks v. Maynard“further consideration in light of Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crooks v. Maynard“[e]very court has power: ... [t]o compel obedience to its ... orders ...,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crooks v. Maynard
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.