Kasparek v. May (1963)

Stat. § 42-372 (Reissue 1978).” It is true that in Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732, 740 , 119 N.W.2d 512, 518 (1963), one may find some language to the effect that “[i]f there was any question as to what the 1956 decree meant, it was possible for May to have secured a judicial interpretation of the decree.” In neither Kasparek nor Neujahr I, however, did we indicate any specific procedure to be followed in seeking an “interpretation.” Ms. Neujahr concluded that all she need do…

Flynn v. District Court, 24 Mont. 33 , 60 P. 493 (1900); Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732, 741 , 119 N.W.2d 512, 519 (1963) ("[I]ndemnity for damages cannot be secured in a contempt proceeding”); Elliott v. Burton, 19 N.C.App. 291, 295 , 198 S.E.2d 489, 491 (1973) ("[T]he trial judge in this State has no authority to award indemnifying fines or other compensation to a private party in a contempt proceeding”).

In Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732, 741 , 119 N.W.2d 512, 519 (1963), this court, considering whether a trial court properly struck all allegations of damages in a civil contempt proceeding, stated: In some jurisdictions, a fine may be imposed for the indemnification of the person who has been damaged by *11 the failure to perform.

As we stated in Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732, 740 , 119 N.W.2d 512, 518 (1963): “When there is a question as to what a court intends by its order, and one acts on his own interpretation, he does so at his peril.” However, in this case, because of the possibility of confusion resulting from the finding in the order of January 29,1979, that the plaintiffs had not proved that the dike had not been removed so as to restore the land at that point to the level existing prior to 1…

See id. “ ‘Civil contempt is available to enforce the decree actually rendered, not to afford a remedy for the recovery of subsequent damage.’ ” Id. at 11 , 504 N.W.2d at 93 , quoting Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732 , 119 N.W.2d 512 (1963).

See Kasparek v. May, 174 Neb. 732 , 119 N. W. 2d 512 .