Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 JOHNS 395 - Yates v. Lansing

Yates v. Lansing’s Empirical Analysis

1811

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably In re Chapman (1897), In re Nevitt (1902)

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 25 states

1401811182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The right of punishing for contempts by summary conviction is inherent in all courts of justice and legislative assemblies, and is essential for their protection and existence. It is a branch of the common law adopted and sanctioned by our state constitution. The discretion involved in" this power is, in a great measure, arbitrary and undefinable, and yet the experience of ages has demonstrated, that it is perfectly compatible with civil liberty, and auxiliary to the purest ends of justice. The known existence of such a power prevents, in a thousand instances, the necessity of exerting it; and its obvious liability to abuse is perhaps a strong reason why it is so seldom abused.””
    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.