State ex rel. Duffy v. Civil District Court
Citations
- 112 La. 182
- 36 So. 315
- 1904 La. LEXIS 378
Syllabus
<p>CONTEMPT — PROCEDURE—¡..OBJECT—SEQUESTRATION.</p> <p>1. The remedies by which the private rights and obligations of litigants are protected and enforced are provided for in the Code of Practice and the statutes of the state. A proceeding directed by a court against a party to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of its authority in refusing to obey its orders is not one designed for the benefit of one or more of the litigants, though infliction of punishment upon that party under a finding that he was guilty as charged may inure to the benefit of the mover in the rule by way of consequence or result through his final compliance with the order. The object and purpose of the proceeding is to vindicate the authority and dignity of the court.</p> <p>2. The writ of sequestration directed the sheriff to sequester certain articles, but did not give direct order to relators to deliver the same. The only direct order given to them by the court was that given by. it after they had been called before it to answer the rale for contempt in having, before a demand upon them, placed the articles sought to be sequestered beyond the reach of sequestration by the sheriff. The act with which they stood charged was one which preceded the rule for contempt. The rule should have been tried and disposed of on that issue. The court should not have substituted for the act with which relators stood charged their neglect to comply with an order given them for the first time pending the rule.</p> <p>3. If a sheriff, holding a writ of fi. fa. or a writ of sequestration, could, by making a demand upon a party having money in his possession to deliver the same to him, on such demand not being complied with, cause the court to issue a rule against this party to show cause why he should not make such delivery, and, failing so to do, to be punished for contempt, the contempt proceeding would become an easy, convenient, general substitute for the specific legal remedies provided b
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that detention pursuant to § 1225(b) for 34 months without a bond hearing violated the petitioner’s due process rights
- holding that detention pursuant to § 1225(b) for 34 months without a bond hearing violated the petitioner's due process rights
- granting bond hearing where the petitioner had been detained for 34 months
- “There is no merit to the government’s argument that the normal burden of proof should shift to petitioner.”
- “It is well-established that national security concerns affect the scope of due process.”
- 34-month detention of arriving alien without bond hearing violates due process
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.