Mechanic v. Gruensfelder (1970)

Cf. Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304-305 (Mo.App.1970); Chemical Fireproofing Corporation v. Bronska, 553 S.W.2d 710, 715 (Mo.App.1977).

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 307 (Mo.App.1970).

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970); Ex parte Ryan, 607 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Mo.App.1980); State ex rel.

The civil contemnor [sic] has at all times the power to terminate his punishment by compliance with the order of the court-i. e.: purging.” Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970).

Presented the opportunity to examine these witnesses and elicit testimony in support of petitioners’ stated defense, the attorney for petitioners pursued other lines of questioning on cross-examination and did not avail himself of the opportunity which petitioners now argue was denied them. 6 Procedural due process in a criminal contempt proceeding “requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet t…

Without this power courts are no more than advisory bodies to be heeded or not at the whim of the individual.” Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304, 305 (Mo.App.1970).

Its function is to provide a coercive means to compel the other party to the litigation to comply with relief granted to his adversary.’” Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Mo. banc 1976) (emphasis added) (quoting Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo. App. 1970)).

The purpose of requiring an injunction bond is “to protect parties who sustain damage as a result of compliance with [an injunction] later determined to have been illegally or improperly issued.” Buttress v. Taylor, 62 S.W.3d 672, 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1970)); see also Paul’s Indus.

Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25, 37-38 (Mo.App.1977) (explaining “[o]nce a court ... issues an order ... the order must be scrupulously obeyed even though it may prove to be erroneous” and that until the “decision is modified or reversed it must be respected under pain of contempt”); Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Mo. banc 1976), quoting Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 305-06 (Mo.App.1970) (noting that criminal contempt citations serve “the purpose of prot…

Jarboe v. Holt, 444 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Mo. banc 1969)). “ ‘Although at times the line is hard to draw, the essential difference lies in who is sought to be protected by the contempt proceeding.’ ” Teefey, 533 S.W.2d at 565 -66 (quoting Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970)).

As stated in Mechanic v. Gru-ensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 309 (Mo.App. 1970), the purpose of requiring an injunction bond is “to protect parties who sustain damage as a result of compbance with [an injunction] later determined to have been ibegaby or improperly issued.” Our interpretation of § 526.070 as to whether attorney’s fees incurred in obtaining an assessment of damages after the restraint is lifted are recoverable is in keeping with that purpose.

Huber v. Huber, 649 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Mo.App.1983); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970).

Ex parte Neal, 507 S.W.2d 674, 679 (Mo.App.1974); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 309 (Mo.App.1970).

Simmons v. Megerman, 742 S.W.2d 202, 204 [2] (Mo.App.1987); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304-5 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1970). 2 Imboden’s punishment is criminal in nature.

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 310 (Mo.App.1970).

Ryan v. Moreland, 653 S.W.2d 244, 247 (Mo.App.1983); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304-305 (Mo. App.1970).

Huber v. Huber, 649 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Mo.App.1983); Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970).

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 (Mo.App.1970).

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 308 [9-11] (Mo.App.1970); 17 C.J.S.

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 [2] (Mo.App.1970).

Two Missouri cases which touch the subject, Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 316 (Mo.App.1970), involving criminal contempt and State v. Light, 577 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1979), involving manslaughter, tersely do so and reject contentions that “selective prosecution” occurred.

Petitioner’s presence when the restraining order was read is sufficient to establish actual knowledge, Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 312 (Mo.App.1970).

In a criminal contempt proceeding the defendant must be advised of the charges against him, have reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense, is entitled to be represented by counsel, Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 309 (Mo.App.1970), may not be required to testify against himself, Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & R.

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 [1] (Mo.App.1970); 17 Am.

Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 313-314 (Mo.App.1970).

All the elements constituting criminal contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 311 (23) (Mo.App.,1970), and “a contempt like a crime must be measured by the intent with which it is committed.” Ex parte Howell, 273 Mo. 96 , 200 S.W. 65, 70 (1918), McMullin v. Sulgrove, supra 459 S.W.2d l.c. 386.

Crow v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205 , 76 S.W. 79, 86 ; Ex parte Clark, 208 Mo. 121 , 106 S.W. 990, 996 [4-8]; Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, Mo.App., 461 S.W.2d 298, 304 [1, 2], See also: 17 C.J.S., Contempt, §§ 5, 6; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Sec. 4. 2 .

See Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 316 (Mo.App.

See Mechanic v. Gruensfelder, 461 S.W.2d 298, 306 (Mo.App.1970). 3 .