Mrozek v. James

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was no error in the trial court’s contempt finding where the factual findings were supported in the record
• stating that sanctions are proper elements of a civil contempt order where they are coercive and compensatory
• reiterating that “[sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed for one or both of two purposes: to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and/or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s noncompliance'with'a court order.”
• reiterating that “[sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed for one or both of two purposes: to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and/or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s noncompliance'with'a court order.”
• reiterating that “[sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed for one or both of two purposes: to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and/or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s noncompliance'with'a court order.”
• reiterating that “[sanctions for civil contempt can be imposed for one or both of two purposes: to compel or coerce obedience to a court order and/or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s noncompliance'with'a court order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).