Bachman v. Bachman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that state constitutional rights afforded “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,” Or. Const. art. I, § 11, do not apply to a punitive contempt proceeding in Oregon “because contempt is not a criminal prosecution”
• “[A] contempt proceeding is neither civil nor criminal . . . [but] a unique and inherent power of a court to ensure compliance with its orders.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Szalai v. Holder
  Ninth Circuit· 2009-07-16· cited 23×
• Fernando Diaz-Quirazco v. William Barr
  Ninth Circuit· 2019-07-23· cited 19×
• State v. Reynolds
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-12-08· cited 11×
• State v. Lam
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-08-15· cited 10×
• Mouktabis v. Clackamas County Assessor
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2023-09-07· cited 9×
• State v. Litscher
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-09-06· cited 7×
• Lozano v. Agustin
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-05-13· cited 3×
• State v. Lucier
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-07-31· cited 3×
• Chriswisser v. Pitts
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-09-25· cited 1×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1993-10-19· cited 2,400×
• Brown v. Multnomah County District Court
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1977-10-12· cited 214×
• Ex Parte Robinson
  Supreme Court· 1873-10-01· cited 140×
• State Ex Rel. Hathaway v. Hart
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1985-11-05· cited 29×
• In re the Marriage of Dahlem
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-12-23· cited 8×
• State ex rel. Pyle v. Pyle
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-02-12· cited 5×
• Myers v. Golden
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1989-01-25· cited 1×