Griffith v. Oles’s Empirical Analysis
895 F.2d 1503 · 1990
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Celotex Corporation v. Edwards (1995), Mountain America Credit Union v. Skinner (1990)
43 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 10 U.S.C. § 848 · 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 1104 · 11 U.S.C. § 323 · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3401 · 18 U.S.C. § 401
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Vandygriff v. Phillips · United States v. Raddatz · Crowell v. Benson
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [contempt] order [entered by a bankruptcy court] shall be effective 10 days after service of the order and shall have the same force and effect as an order of contempt entered by the district court unless, within the 10 day period, the entity named therein serves and files objections prepared in the manner provided in Rule 9033(b). If timely objections are filed, the order shall be reviewed as provided in Rule 9033.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The district judge shall make a de novo review upon the record or, after additional evidence, of any portion of the bankruptcy judge's findings of fact or conclusions of law to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the bankruptcy judge with instructions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Several lower courts have determined that civil contempt proceedings, though they do not fit within any of the explicit "core” proceedings listed, they do within the section 157(b)(2)(o) catchall provision, which includes as being core "other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims.” [citations omitted]. In effect, these courts have reasoned that civil contempt is itself core because it is inseparable from the obviously core proceedings that the civil contempt power helps facilitate. If bankruptcy civil contempt orders may arguably be core because their compliance coercive, remedial nature makes them inseparable from the underlying core proceedings, just as civil contempts generally have been viewed as part of the underlying case, then the same considerations may likewise arguably support an implicit section 157 grant to bankruptcy courts of civil contempt power. However, these considerations do not support the inference that Congress empowered bankruptcy courts to criminally punish for willful disobedience of their orders, especially where the disobedience was not in (or near) the presence of the court.”
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.