Ex Parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …alleged contemnor must be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that she had knowledge of the content of such order. at p. 643 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2017–2018 · …due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order. at p. 643 ✓
45 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Leticia Lozano v. the State of Texas (texapp, 2024-06-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Leticia Lozano v. the State of Texas (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Due process requires that the alleged [constructive] contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order.” Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Stephanie MacK v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that [s]he had knowledge of the content of such order.” Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Tex. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
The April 18 order states relator has “intentionally disregard[ed] the court’s order and that contemptuous relief can be sought.” -6- 04-22-00226-CV To satisfy due process, the “alleged contemnor [must] be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that [she] had knowledge of the content of such order.” Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Charles A. Miller
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Melissa Warrick, in Her Official Capacity as an Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Lillian Blancas, in Her Official Capacity as an Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Tom Darnold, in His Official Capacity as an Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas (2×)
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Ex parte Adell, 769 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) R. Wayne Johnson v. Kathleen Clark and Majorie Jenkins
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) R. Wayne Johnson v. Kathleen Clark and Majorie Jenkins
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) in Re R. Wayne Johnson, Relator
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tarrant County Hospital District v. Henry
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987); In re Acceptance Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Acceptance Insurance Co.
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cadle Co. v. Lobingier (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 262 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding); Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987) (orig.proceeding).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte: Kenneth Brewer
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard , 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987); Stephens , 734 S.W.2d at 764 ) (judgment holding relator in contempt for failure to pay timely void because motion for contempt alleged only that relator failed to pay).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte Chunn
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte: Ronald Henry Chitsey
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Ex parte Vetterick , 744 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. 1988) Ex parte Blanchard , 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987); Ex parte Gordon , 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979); Ex parte Edgerly , 441 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte Adell
Tex. · 1989 · confidence medium
Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W. 2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987); Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1979); Ex parte Edgerly, 441 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex.1969); see also Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.1988).
discussed Cited "see" in Regard to M.T.M. (2×)
Tex. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Chris Traylor, as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission And the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Diana D., as Next Friend of KD, a Child Karen G., as Next Friend of TG and ZM, Children Guadalupe P., as Next Friend of LP, a Child Sally L., as Next Friend of CH, a Child Dena D., as Next Friend of BD, a Child OCI Acquisition, LLC
Tex. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (per curiam) (contempt must be preceded by personal 9 service on the alleged contemnor of an appropriate show cause order or legally equivalent method of notice); see also Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding).
discussed Cited "see" In Re KAR
Tex. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987) (stating that, in constructive contempt cases, due process requires that contemnor be personally served with show — cause order or have actual knowledge of the contents of such an order, otherwise the contempt judgment is void). *713 Accordingly, we reject the notion that lack of personal service of the sanctions motions provides grounds for error. 2.
discussed Cited "see" in the Interest of K.A.R. (2×)
Tex. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987) (stating that, in constructive contempt cases, due process requires that contemnor be personally served with show- — cause order or have actual knowledge of the contents of such an order, otherwise the contempt judgment is void).
cited Cited "see" Ex Parte Vetterick
Tex. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex Parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." in Re Tanisa Jeffers
Tex. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. P. 52.8(a); see also Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex. 1987) (“Due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order.” (emphasis added) (citing Ex parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. 1969))).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Ojeda v. Reed
Tex. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.1988); see also Ex parte Blanchard, 736 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex parte Vernon Hugh BLANCHARD, Relator.
C-6631.
Texas Supreme Court.
Sep 16, 1987.
736 S.W.2d 642
Per Curiam.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

David C. Gunn, Baytown, for relator.

Ron Marsh, Baytown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this original habeas corpus proceeding Relator Vernon Hugh Blanchard argues that he was denied due process of law because he was not afforded proper notice[*643] of the contempt charge for which he was incarcerated. We agree and order the Relator discharged.

Vernon's incarceration results from an attempt by his ex-wife Margaret to compel delivery of certain property in his possession, but awarded to her in their divorce. On May 29, 1987, Margaret filed a Motion in Aid and Clarification and to Enforce Decree of Divorce. This motion and an order setting a hearing for June 19, 1987, were served on Vernon.

At the hearing on June 19, the court ordered Vernon to deliver several items of property to Margaret the next day, June 20. Several days later, on June 25, the Judge signed an order documenting what he had ordered at the June 19 hearing. In addition to directing Vernon to deliver items of personal property to Margaret, the order included the following provision:

It is ordered that Respondent appear in this court on June 26, 1987, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not be fined or jailed or otherwise held in contempt of this court for his failure to deliver the items of personal property set out above to Margaret Blanchard at the date and time so ordered by this court.

A hearing was held on June 26, after which the Court found that Vernon had not delivered certain property, found him in contempt and committed him to jail.

Our immediate problem with the contempt order is that it was not preceded by service of an appropriate show cause order or any other appropriate method of notice. Due process requires that the alleged contemnor be personally served with a show cause order or that it be established that he had knowledge of the content of such order. Ex parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex.1969). In the present case there is no indication that the court issued any valid show cause order or equivalent legal process apprising the contemnor of the accusations. The hearing on June 19 and the written order of June 25, directing Vernon to appear and show cause, are insufficient for two reasons. First, assuming that the June 25 order was to serve as a show cause order, there is nothing in the record indicating service on Vernon. Vernon admits that he received a copy of the order, but not until the contempt hearing on June 26. Obviously, such notice comes too late. Second, the June 25 order is deficient because it does not specify the contemptuous acts, and could not, because it originated at the same hearing which produced the order sought to be enforced. Likewise, any oral notification Vernon may have received at the June 19 hearing was deficient for the same reasons.

In Ex parte Edgerly, 441 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex.1969), we wrote that due process of law demands "full and complete notification of the subject matter, and the show cause order or other means of notification must state when, how, and by what means the defendant has been guilty of the alleged contempt." In Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1979), we held "in situations of contempt committed outside the presence of the court, the contempt judgment must be based on a valid show cause order or equivalent legal process that contains full and unambiguous notification of the accusation of contempt." Absent such notification, the contempt judgment is a nullity. Id. at 688.

The present order of contempt, rendered without proper notice to the accused, is contrary to our holding in Ex parte Gordon. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 122, without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court grants the writ and orders Relator discharged.