City of Chattanooga v. Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “only courts of general jurisdiction have the power to empanel a jury to determine facts or to impose punishment”
• stating that “the restriction on imposing ‘fines’ contained in Article VI, section 14 does not prevent a court from imposing any monetary assessment in excess of fifty-dollars”
• noting that a “fine” is “a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense” (quoting Browning–Ferris Indus. of Vt. v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257, 265 (1989))
• finding that “civil contempt fines [] are generally regarded as being remedial in nature when (1) the fine is prospectively coercive, or (2) the fine serves to compensate the party injured by the violation of the order”
• pointing out that Article VI, section 14 does not apply when the assessment is not punitive in nature
• rejecting challenge to warrant bearing copy of judge’s signature because there was no indication that the judge “had not adopted the facsimile” as his own

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).