contempt hearing (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

contempt hearing in Michigan

21 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 11 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
DeGeorge v. Warheitgreen
michctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2013–2024
2 sentences

2013See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with the order and is in present violation of the order”); DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587, 592 ; 741 NW2d 384 (2007) (“Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor’s compliance or inability to comply.”).

2013See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with the order and is in present violation of the order”); DeGeorge v Warheit, 276 Mich App 587, 592 ; 741 NW2d 384 (2007) (“Civil contempt proceedings seek compliance through the imposition of sanctions of indefinite duration, terminable upon the contemnor’s compliance or inability to comply.”).

22
People v. Antkoviakgreen
michctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See People v Antkoviak, 242 Mich App 424, 480-482 ; 619 NW2d 18 (2000).

2023See People v Antkoviak, 242 Mich App 424, 480-482 ; 619 NW2d 18 (2000).

22
Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.green
ca6 · 1911 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987See, also, Gompers, supra, 442 , where it was said that a coercive sanction "is intended to coerce the defendant to do the thing referred by the order for the benefit of the complainant." What is apparent from cases such as Gompers and United Mine Workers is that a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with the order and is in present violation of the order.

1987See, also, Gompers, supra, 442 , where it was said that a coercive sanction "is intended to coerce the defendant to do the thing referred by the order for the benefit of the complainant.” What is apparent from cases such as Gompers and United Mine Workers is that a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with the order and is in present violation of the order.

22
Porter v. Portergreen
michctapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024
2 sentences

2024See Porter, 285 Mich App at 456 ; In re Contempt of Pavlos- Hackney, 343 Mich App at 671. 4 We observe that by proceeding with the contempt hearing on the erroneous presumption that this was civil contempt, not criminal, the trial court neglected many of the procedural safeguards required for indirect criminal contempt proceedings.

2022Porter v Porter, 285 Mich App 450, 456-457 ; 776 NW2d 377 (2009).

12
In Re Contempt of Doughertygreen
mich · 1987 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2007–2013
2 sentences

2013Additionally, I do not find relevant the majority’s statement that the GTLA grants immunity from “tort liability,” while not expressly referring to a “tort duty.” It goes without saying that in order for a tort or liability resulting from a tort to exist, a tort duty must exist; thus, in my view, the majority’s analysis appears to rest on the fact that petitioner seeks remedial relief under MCL 600.1721. 6 See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with

2013Additionally, I do not find relevant the majority’s statement that the GTLA grants immunity from “tort liability,” while not expressly referring to a “tort duty.” It goes without saying that in order for a tort or liability resulting from a tort to exist, a tort duty must exist; thus, in my view, the majority’s analysis appears to rest on the fact that petitioner seeks remedial relief under MCL 600.1721. 6 See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with

12
In Re Contempt of Robertsongreen
michctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See id.

11
People v. Westongreen
mich · 1982 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024See People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373 ; 319 NW2d 537 (1982) (holding that the trial court's failure to schedule the defendant's preliminary examination within the period required by the Legislature demanded dismissal of the criminal charge); In re Contempt of Tanksley, 243 Mich App 123, 129 ; 621 NW2d 229 (2000) (holding that the trial court’s failure to hold a contempt hearing on a charged personal protection order violation -3- within 72 hours of a respondent’s arrest without releasing him from custody, as required by statute, required dismissal of the charge without prejudice)4.

2024See People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373 ; 319 NW2d 537 (1982) (holding that the trial court's failure to schedule the defendant's preliminary examination within the period required by the Legislature demanded dismissal of the criminal charge); In re Contempt of Tanksley, 243 Mich App 123, 129 ; 621 NW2d 229 (2000) (holding that the trial court’s failure to hold a contempt hearing on a charged personal protection order violation -3- within 72 hours of a respondent’s arrest without releasing him from custody, as required by statute, required dismissal of the charge without prejudice)4.

11
In Re Contempt of ACIAgreen
michctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Id. at 712.

11
United States v. Alexander D. Loneygreen
ca3 · 2000 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016The trial court, on two occasions within its opinion and order, stated that Charron would be responsible for fees and costs Morris “incurred in pursuing civil contempt” and “in connection with this contempt proceeding.” In addition, the trial court expressed its intention to recognize and “reflect[] economic reality.” The term “in connection with” is construed as “expansive” and is “used to capture a very wide variety of different relationships[.]” United States v Loney, 219 F3d 281, 283-284 (CA 3, 2000). “[T]he phrase ‘in connection with’ expresses some relationship or association, one that c

2016The trial court, on two occasions within its opinion and order, stated that Charron would be responsible for fees and costs Morris “incurred in pursuing civil contempt” and “in connection with this contempt proceeding.” In addition, the trial court expressed its intention to recognize and “reflect[] economic reality.” The term “in connection with” is construed as “expansive” and is “used to capture a very wide variety of different relationships[.]” United States v Loney, 219 F3d 281, 283-284 (CA 3, 2000). “[T]he phrase ‘in connection with’ expresses some relationship or association, one that c

11
Causley v. LaFrenieregreen
michctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014See Causley v LaFreniere, 78 Mich App 250, 251 ; 259 NW2d 445 (1977); Moneada v Moneada, 81 Mich App 26, 27-28 ; 264 NW2d 104 (1978).

2014See Causley v LaFreniere, 78 Mich App 250, 251 ; 259 NW2d 445 (1977); Moneada v Moneada, 81 Mich App 26, 27-28 ; 264 NW2d 104 (1978).

11
Chambliss v. Bucknergreen
almd · 2011 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014For example, in Chambliss v Buckner, 804 F Supp 2d 1240, 1255-1256 (MD Ala, 2011), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama determined that the plaintiff, Dexter A. Chambliss, from whom the Alabama Department of Human Resources sought child support payments, could not cite 42 USC 407(a) as a means to avoid a contempt hearing.

11
United States v. United Mine Workers of Americagreen
scotus · 1947 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Additionally, I do not find relevant the majority’s statement that the GTLA grants immunity from “tort liability,” while not expressly referring to a “tort duty.” It goes without saying that in order for a tort or liability resulting from a tort to exist, a tort duty must exist; thus, in my view, the majority’s analysis appears to rest on the fact that petitioner seeks remedial relief under MCL 600.1721. 6 See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
In re Moroun green
michctapp · 2012
2 sentences

2013Additionally, I do not find relevant the majority’s statement that the GTLA grants immunity from “tort liability,” while not expressly referring to a “tort duty.” It goes without saying that in order for a tort or liability resulting from a tort to exist, a tort duty must exist; thus, in my view, the majority’s analysis appears to rest on the fact that petitioner seeks remedial relief under MCL 600.1721. 6 See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with

2013Additionally, I do not find relevant the majority’s statement that the GTLA grants immunity from “tort liability,” while not expressly referring to a “tort duty.” It goes without saying that in order for a tort or liability resulting from a tort to exist, a tort duty must exist; thus, in my view, the majority’s analysis appears to rest on the fact that petitioner seeks remedial relief under MCL 600.1721. 6 See In re Contempt of Dougherty, 429 Mich at 99 (stating that “a coercive sanction is proper where the contemnor, at the time of the contempt hearing, is under a present duty to comply with

32013–2018
In Re Contempt of Tanksley green
michctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2024See People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373 ; 319 NW2d 537 (1982) (holding that the trial court's failure to schedule the defendant's preliminary examination within the period required by the Legislature demanded dismissal of the criminal charge); In re Contempt of Tanksley, 243 Mich App 123, 129 ; 621 NW2d 229 (2000) (holding that the trial court’s failure to hold a contempt hearing on a charged personal protection order violation -3- within 72 hours of a respondent’s arrest without releasing him from custody, as required by statute, required dismissal of the charge without prejudice)4.

2024See People v Weston, 413 Mich 371, 372-373 ; 319 NW2d 537 (1982) (holding that the trial court's failure to schedule the defendant's preliminary examination within the period required by the Legislature demanded dismissal of the criminal charge); In re Contempt of Tanksley, 243 Mich App 123, 129 ; 621 NW2d 229 (2000) (holding that the trial court’s failure to hold a contempt hearing on a charged personal protection order violation -3- within 72 hours of a respondent’s arrest without releasing him from custody, as required by statute, required dismissal of the charge without prejudice)4.

22023–2024
People v. White green
michctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2022Although defendant sought to exclude from evidence all acts against the victim that may have resulted in a conviction for domestic violence, third offense, and the contempt violation, the prosecutor alleged that the evidence was pertinent to establish aggravated stalking and did not violate double jeopardy, citing People v White, 212 Mich App 298 ; 536 NW2d 876 (1995).

2022Although defendant sought to exclude from evidence all acts against the victim that may have resulted in a conviction for domestic violence, third offense, and the contempt violation, the prosecutor alleged that the evidence was pertinent to establish aggravated stalking and did not violate double jeopardy, citing People v White, 212 Mich App 298 ; 536 NW2d 876 (1995).

22022–2022
People Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Yarowsky neutral
mich · 1926
2 sentences

1987In Yarowsky, supra, a chancery proceeding was brought by the Attorney General to abate a public nuisance, a house of prostitution.

1987In Yarowsky, supra, a chancery proceeding was brought by the Attorney General to abate a public nuisance, a house of prostitution.

21987–1987
Jones v. Department of Corrections green
mich · 2003
1 sentence

2024We conclude that this case is most analogous to Jones, 468 Mich at 651-656 .

12024–2024
In re Kabanuk green
michctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2024Any failure to introduce evidence in support of defendant’s testimony was not a result of a trial court error. -6- Because the trial court’s factual findings were supported by competent evidence, and we “may not weigh the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses in determining whether there is competent evidence to support the findings,” Kabanuk, 295 Mich App at 256 , we conclude that the evidence in support of the trial court’s finding of contempt was sufficient.

12024–2024
Yoost v. Caspari green
michctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2022Yoost, 295 Mich App at 220 .

12022–2022
Moncada v. Moncada green
michctapp · 1978
2 sentences

2014See Causley v LaFreniere, 78 Mich App 250, 251 ; 259 NW2d 445 (1977); Moneada v Moneada, 81 Mich App 26, 27-28 ; 264 NW2d 104 (1978).

2014See Causley v LaFreniere, 78 Mich App 250, 251 ; 259 NW2d 445 (1977); Moneada v Moneada, 81 Mich App 26, 27-28 ; 264 NW2d 104 (1978).

12014–2014
State Ex Rel. Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Coleman green
· 1941
2 sentences

2006Co v. Coleman, [347 Mo 1238] 152 S. W 2d 640 (Mo. 1941). 11 The Coleman court, referring to another case that recognized the power of a court to reinstate a case after a nolle prosequi, stated: But this holding does not necessarily mean that after a case has been dismissed it is still to be considered pending during the entire term at which the order of dismissal was made within the meaning of the contempt rule above set out. ...

2006To rule otherwise would be to narrow the limits of permissible criticism so greatly that the right to criticize would cease to have practical value. [Coleman, supra at 1261 .] The majority’s conclusion that the Badalamenti matter was pending until the time for filing an application for leave to appeal to this Court had expired very much divests the right to criticize of any practical value. 12 The referenced rule addressed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

12006–2006
Crampton v. Department of State green
mich · 1975
2 sentences

1996The third situation listed in Crampton requires disqualification if the judge is "`enmeshed in [other] matters involving petitioner....'" Crampton, 395 Mich. at 351 , 235 N.W.2d 352 (bracketing in the original).

1996The third situation listed in Crampton requires disqualification if the judge is "`enmeshed in [other] matters involving petitioner....'" Crampton, 395 Mich. at 351 , 235 N.W.2d 352 (bracketing in the original).

11996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701 (9) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1715 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1721 (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2950 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411i (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1711 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 171 (1948–2026) OH 102 (1971–2026) PA 95 (1975–2026) GA 72 (1949–2026) FL 65 (1961–2025) CA 45 (1899–2024) IL 43 (1963–2026) TN 39 (1957–2025) LA 37 (1967–2018) NY 34 (1888–2022) MS 32 (1995–2025) AL 31 (1941–2026) IN 26 (1981–2025) IA 25 (1941–2026) NC 24 (1973–2025) MI 21 (1987–2024) MD 18 (1927–2025) CO 16 (1964–2026) WA 15 (2006–2025) CT 15 (1991–2026) OR 14 (1982–2026) MA 14 (1968–2026) SC 14 (1995–2025) ND 13 (1951–2025) KY 12 (1943–2026) VA 11 (1976–2024) WI 11 (1978–2024) DC 11 (1971–2006) WV 9 (1972–2026) RI 9 (1994–2024) UT 8 (1947–2024) AR 8 (1991–2023) MO 8 (1993–2017) WY 7 (1983–2018) KS 6 (1927–2019) ID 6 (1972–2016) VI 5 (2005–2026) NJ 5 (1988–2020) NM 5 (1977–2022) NE 4 (1985–2014) OK 3 (1978–1991) AZ 3 (1984–2014) NH 3 (1978–2022) SD 3 (1983–2021) ME 3 (2003–2015) NV 3 (2021–2023) MN 3 (1983–2016) DE 3 (1996–2018) MT 2 (2010–2023) HI 2 (1987–2009)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check