Vurimindi v. Achek

How courts have described this case

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

• “The defendants may think that a mere assertion of inability to pay made in an affidavit (and thus under oath) precludes a finding of contempt. Not so.”
• “The defendants argued . . . that because the settlement funds have been dissipated, this really is a suit for damages . . . . But the defendants are wrong.”
• “The defendants argued . . . that because the settlement funds have been dissipated, this really is a suit for damages . . . . But the defendants are wrong.”
• “The defendants argued . . . that because the settlement funds have been dissipated, this really is a suit for damages . . . . But the defendants are wrong.”
• “A finding of civil contempt of a judicial order is appealable, even when it is interlocutory as in this case, if but only if the underlying order is appealable. Otherwise a litigant could obtain appellate review of any interlocutory order, at will, by defying it.”
• “A finding of civil contempt of a judicial order is appealable, even when it is interlocutory as in this case, if but only if the underlying order is appealable. Otherwise a litigant could obtain appellate review of any interlocutory order, at will, by defying it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).