McDonald Corporation v. Victory Investments, Samuel H. Rappaport, Leon Silverman, Theodore Snyder, and Elias H. Stein. Appeal of Samuel Rappaport

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a contempt fine was “more akin to a criminal fine than a coercive civil fine” because it was payable to a charitable organization rather than the plaintiff, contained no purge provision, and was not based on evidence of actual damages incurred by the plaintiff
• “The dichotomy between criminal and civil contempt lies in the function of the order.”
• imposition of retroactive daily fine for past misconduct is criminal contempt
• “The fine imposed ... in this case cannot be considered compensatory. . . . [T]he fine imposed was not even payable to [the opposing party which suffered from the contumacious conduct] but instead to a charitable fund.”
• “It is evident that the fine was predicated on past acts of contempt rather than on continued failure to obey because it was payable even though [the contemnor] complied with the court’s order on the day the order was issued.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).