Sharpe v. Munoz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that our Supreme Court rejected the theory that in a contempt proceeding, a respondent who does not have property but is able to work is subject to incarceration which would “put a pressure on [the respondent] to raise the money somehow”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).