Daniel E. Larkin & Christine Larkin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Rule 42 “allows summary procedure” for offenses occurring within the judge’s personal knowledge and presence
• upholding district court’s imposition of criminal contempt sanctions, without hearing, on parties who committed disruptive conduct during trial before sanctioning judge
• observing that “[sjummary punishment always, and rightly, is regarded with disfavor”
• affirming trial judge's summary adjudication of direct criminal contempt pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 42(a) (now Rule 42(b)) upon judge's certification of facts constituting direct contempt
• affirming trial judge's summary adjudication of direct criminal contempt pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(a) (now Rule 42(b)) upon judge’s certification of facts constituting direct contempt
• “During a trial, lawyers must speak ... with relevance and moderation. These are such obvious matters that we should not remind the bar of them were it not for the misconceptions manifest in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).