Hedquist v. Hedquist

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that notice did not comply with due process where the trial court “decid[ed] contempt charges filed as late as the day of the hearing”
• holding that a husband’s due-process rights were violated in a divorce proceeding when he did not have notice within a reasonable time before a particular hearing that the trial court would consider and issue a judgment regarding contempt charges against him
• noting that it has been held that service on party of motion for contempt and rule nisi 17 days before hearing complies with notice requirements of due process
• notice of hearing that did not specify that trial court would hear the contempt motions at pretrial conference was inadequate
• “The constitutional right to due process applies in criminal contempt proceedings because 9 a conviction can result in the loss of liberty and the levy of a penal fine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).