United States v. Oberhellmann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “[T]he requirement of causality, and hence of an effect of the defendant’s contemptuous behavior and hence of an actual obstruction of justice, cannot be satisfied here unless, but for Oberhellmann’s forging of Becker’s name to the withdrawal of appearance, the commotion that followed — the motion to enforce the settle-, ment, the denial of that motion, the inter-pleader suit, and the consequent delay in putting the settlement into effect — would not have occurred, or at least would not have been as great as it was. As far as can be determined from this record, it would have occurred anyway, and would have been just as great. Suppose that instead of filing a notice of withdrawal of appearance and mailing a copy to the city’s lawyer, Oberhellmann had mailed just the cover letter, notifying the lawyer that Becker had acted without authority, and then, when he found out that Becker had, as he feared, settled the case, had followed up the letter with the phone call and the telegrams. The city’s lawyer would still have joined with Becker in filing the motion to enforce the agreement, the motion would still have been denied, therefore the city would still have filed the interpleader suit, and that suit would have wended its way to a conclusion on the same timetable and with the same consequences. The only difference is that Becker would not have written a letter to Judge Mills complaining of Oberhellmann’s forgery and Judge Mills would not have instituted a proceeding for criminal c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Grogan

2. “[T]he remedies for wrongdoing are not limited to criminal sanctions, let alone to criminal contempt. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides mandatory sanctions for the signing of a knowingly false pleading. ... The filing of a knowingly false statement with a federal court can be punished criminally under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Grogan

3. “[P]erhaps the term should be confined to words uttered or gestures made in the courthouse, rather than interpreted to embrace the quiet filing of a piece of paper, albeit or a fraudulent one. Id. at 52-53 . A close review of the cases cited by the Seventh Circuit for the proposition that the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Grogan