State v. Knight
Citations
- 3 S.D. 509
- 54 N.W. 412
- 1893 S.D. LEXIS 7
Syllabus
<p>1. Contempts of court are of two kinds — civil and criminal. When a party-refuses to do something which he is ordered to do for the benefit or advantage of the opposite party, such as disobedience of an order of court for the payment of costs, or nonperformance of the awards of arbitrators, the order is looked upon as a civil execution for the benefit of the injured party, although the proceedings are carried on in the shape of a criminal process; and he stands committed until he complies with the order. The order in such case is not punitive, but coercive.</p> <p>2. If the contempt consists in doing a forbidden act, injurious to the opposite party, the process is criminal, and conviction is followed by fine and imprisonment, or both. This is purely punitive.</p> <p>3. Under our statutes (sections 7499, 7500, 7502 Comp. Laws) writs of error are used to remove to this court for examination and review the record in all criminal actions, and they are allowed in all criminal cases from the final decisions of inferior courts. Criminal contempt proceedings are properly brought to this court by writ of error.</p> <p>4. While an appellate court lias jurisdiction to review an order punishing for a criminal' contempt, so far as to ascertain whether the court inflicting the punishment had jurisdiction, or as to whether the words or acts charged constituted a contempt, yet the decision of the court mating it is not to be lightly reviewed. Its judgment should not be reversed unless it is apparent that no contempt has been committed, or that the court exercised its authority in a capricious, oppressive, or arbitrary manner.</p> <p>5. An injunction order is in a certain sense a supersedeas and operates to suspend the proceedings enjoined by it. An attachment for contempt will lie against one to whom the writ is directed, or who has notice of its issuance, if in the face of its restraining force such person proceeds in the matter enjoined.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>
Judges: Bennett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.Supreme Court· 1904-05-16· cited 357×
- In re NevittEighth Circuit· 1902-08-28· cited 325×
- In Re Contempt of DoughertyMichigan Supreme Court· 1987-10-06· cited 62×
- Sword v. SwordMichigan Supreme Court· 1976-12-31· cited 52×
- Talbert v. TalbertSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1980-04-09· cited 36×
- State, Fall River County, Ex Rel. Dryden v. DrydenSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1987-07-15· cited 32×
- In Re Contempt of RochlinMichigan Court of Appeals· 1990-12-17· cited 32×
- Thomerson v. ThomersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1986-05-14· cited 29×
- State v. SweetlandSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1893-02-15· cited 24×
- Freeman v. City of HuronSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1896-04-09· cited 24×
- Karras v. GannonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1984-02-22· cited 21×
- Snow v. SnowUtah Supreme Court· 1896-02-04· cited 17×
- Driscoll v. DriscollSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1997-09-10· cited 15×
- Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. YoungSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1990-05-16· cited 14×
- Fritz v. FritzSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1922-04-10· cited 9×
- Heinze v. Butte & B. Consol. Min. Co.Ninth Circuit· 1904-03-04· cited 8×
- Brummer v. StokebrandSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-10-27· cited 5×
- Burkhardt v. Georgia School TownshipSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1896-10-13· cited 5×
- Evans v. UnruhSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1961-03-01· cited 4×
- Williams International Corp. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court· 1987-10-06· cited 4×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Storey v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 55×
- Hayes v. FischerSupreme Court· 1880-11-08· cited 49×
- In the Matter of B. F. Moore, and OthersSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1869-06-05· cited 41×
- Ex parte PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 39×
- People ex rel. Hinckley v. PirfenbrinkIllinois Supreme Court· 1879-10-01· cited 31×
- State v. LeftwichSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1889-06-10· cited 30×
- Ex parte SmithIndiana Supreme Court· 1867-05-15· cited 28×
- Ex Parte RoweCalifornia Supreme Court· 1857-07-01· cited 24×
- In re FanningSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1889-01-04· cited 17×
- Taylor v. MoffattIndiana Supreme Court· 1830-05-06· cited 16×
- Exparte LangdonSupreme Court of Vermont· 1853-07-15· cited 14×
- Winkelman v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1869-06-15· cited 14×
- State v. EarlIndiana Supreme Court· 1872-11-15· cited 14×
- Roe v. Superior Court of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-02-11· cited 11×
- Butler v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1874-02-15· cited 2×
Sourced 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.