Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
95 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1975–2026 30 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Choplosky v. Choploskygreen2 sentences2017However, relying upon the precept discussed in Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa.Super. 590 , 584 A.2d 340, 342 (1990), “without a motion to modify visitation rights before it, a trial court may not permanently alter the visitation rights of [the] parties,” this Court vacated the custody order on appeal as violating the father’s right to due process. 2015See Choplosky, 584 A.2d at 342-43 (explaining that the trial court erred by permanently modifying custody following a contempt hearing, but suggesting that a temporary modification may be permissible); see also Langendorfer, 797 A.2d at 308 (“Father contends that the court may not permanently modify a custody order without having a petition for modification before it. | 7 | 7 |
Lachat v. Hinchliffegreen2 sentences2019“The focus of a contempt hearing is very narrow and is confined to a consideration of whether the specific order before the court has been violated.” Lachat, 769 A.2d at 491 (citation omitted). 2018In support of his argument, Appellant cites to Lachat v. Hinchliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa.Super. 2001), wherein this Court relevantly held the following: [T]he trial court employed the contempt hearing as a forum to attempt the resolution of all the myriad disputes between the parties. | 4 | 5 |
Langendorfer v. Spearmangreen2 sentences2015In Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303, 308-309 (Pa. Super. 2002), this Court held that the trial court violated the father’s due process rights in modifying legal custody of a child where the contempt petition did not seek a change in the parties’ custodial arrangement and there was no prehearing notice that the issue of custody would be considered at the contempt hearing. 2015See Choplosky, 584 A.2d at 342-43 (explaining that the trial court erred by permanently modifying custody following a contempt hearing, but suggesting that a temporary modification may be permissible); see also Langendorfer, 797 A.2d at 308 (“Father contends that the court may not permanently modify a custody order without having a petition for modification before it. | 3 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Diazgreen2 sentences2024See Diaz, supra at 861 . -6- J-S43018-23 a new contempt hearing where Appellant may be represented by counsel. 2024See Rogowski, supra; Diaz, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the contempt order and sentence, and we remand for a new contempt hearing where Appellant may be represented by counsel. ____________________________________________ 4 Although Diaz began as a criminal matter with the entry of a guilty plea for retail theft charges, the parties agreed that the appellant subsequently proceeded to a civil contempt hearing due to his failure to pay certain fines and costs. | 3 | 4 |
Gagliardi v. Pennsylvania Municipal Service Co.green2 sentences2015Commonwealth v. Moody, 622 Pa. 160 , 79 A.3d 1093, 1094 (2013) (per curiam). 2015Commonwealth v. Moody, 79 A.3d 1093, 1094 (Pa. 2013) (per curiam). | 3 | 3 |
J.M. v. K.W.green2 sentences2020Grandmother’s argument is based upon our holding in J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2017), where we concluded that the trial court erred in transferring physical custody as a sanction for contempt because the court neglected to provide notice that custody was at issue.3 We reasoned, “a trial court may transfer physical custody at the conclusion of a contempt hearing only when the modification suits the child’s best interest in light of the statutory factors and the respondent has been given particular notice of that objective.” Id. 2020Grandmother’s argument is based upon our holding in J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1268 (Pa.Super. 2017), where we concluded that the trial court erred in transferring physical custody as a sanction for contempt because the court neglected to provide notice that custody was at issue.3 We reasoned, “a trial court may transfer physical custody at the conclusion of a contempt hearing only when the modification suits the child’s best interest in light of the statutory factors and the respondent has been given particular notice of that objective.” Id. | 2 | 3 |
Garr v. Petersgreen2 sentences2020See Garr, 773 A.2d at 189 . 2020See Garr, 773 A.2d at 189 . | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2018Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d at 832 . ____________________________________________ 9 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal cases. - 15 - J-A04022-18 On appeal, the defendant claimed, among other things, that “the trial court’s failure to advise her of her right to counsel at the contempt hearing deprived her of due process under” the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as similar provisions in the Texas Constitution.10 Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d at 834-35 . 2018Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d at 832 . ____________________________________________ 9 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal cases. - 15 - J-A04022-18 On appeal, the defendant claimed, among other things, that “the trial court’s failure to advise her of her right to counsel at the contempt hearing deprived her of due process under” the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as similar provisions in the Texas Constitution.10 Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d at 834-35 . | 2 | 2 |
Stamus v. Dutcavichgreen2 sentences2021Id. (stating “the issue of whether the order should be dismissed was simply not before [the court]”). 2021See, e.g., Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding the court erred when it issued a rule to show cause rather than scheduling a contempt hearing after police filed an ICC complaint against the appellant). | 1 | 2 |
P.H.D. v. R.R.D.green2 sentences2020At the contempt hearing, the trial court “clarified” the custody order by explaining that father was “not to appear at places where the children would reasonably be expected to be.” Id. 2015We agree.”) (citation omitted, emphasis added); P.H.D., 56 A.3d at 706 (“We have expressly held that a trial court ‘may not permanently modify a custody order without having a petition for modification before it.’”) (quoting Langendorfer, 797 A.2d at 308 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2026Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that pro se litigant “must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing”). | 1 | 1 |
Fenstamaker v. Fenstamakergreen1 sentence2025See id. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Harris, H.green1 sentence2025See Harris, supra. Although the trial court intended to not hold Mother in contempt until her appeal was remanded, its comments at the contempt hearing indicate that it misunderstood when the remand occurred, and, thus, when it was revested - 10 - J-A24037-25 with jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2024In response, the DRO claims that pursuant to Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 449 (2011) (holding that the 14th Amendment entitles an indigent contemnor to either counsel in a civil contempt proceeding or “the benefit of alternative procedures”), McCarthy, through the language contained in forms that were sent to him prior to the contempt hearing, was “provided the opportunity to seek counsel and an explanation of the importance of financial status as a possible defense to his contempt.” Appellee’s Brief, at 15. | 1 | 1 |
Shaner, W. v. Harriman, C.green1 sentence2024Shaner v. Harriman, 189 A.3d 1088, 1090 (Pa. Super. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Rogowski, S. v. Kirven, D.green2 sentences2024See Rogowski, supra; Diaz, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the contempt order and sentence, and we remand for a new contempt hearing where Appellant may be represented by counsel. ____________________________________________ 4 Although Diaz began as a criminal matter with the entry of a guilty plea for retail theft charges, the parties agreed that the appellant subsequently proceeded to a civil contempt hearing due to his failure to pay certain fines and costs. 2024See Rogowski, supra; Diaz, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the contempt order and sentence, and we remand for a new contempt hearing where Appellant may be represented by counsel. ____________________________________________ 4 Although Diaz began as a criminal matter with the entry of a guilty plea for retail theft charges, the parties agreed that the appellant subsequently proceeded to a civil contempt hearing due to his failure to pay certain fines and costs. | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen2 sentences2023See also Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364 , 400 n.18 (Pa. 2018) ____________________________________________ 6 At the contempt hearing, the trial court relied upon Falana. 2023See also Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364 , 400 n.18 (Pa. 2018) ____________________________________________ 6 At the contempt hearing, the trial court relied upon Falana. | 1 | 1 |
| Barrett v. Barrettgreen | 1 | 1 |
Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorialgreen2 sentences2023See id. at 72-73 . 2023See id. at 72-73 . | 1 | 1 |
Estate of DiSabato, Dec'd. Appeal of DiGiovanni, Pgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., In re Estate of DiSabato, 165 A.3d at 992 . - 20 - J-A18035-23 of counsel fees, as a sanction for contempt was reasonable; because Husband did not face incarceration upon any nonpayment of fees, the court did not first have to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Husband had the present ability to pay the fees. | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Reidgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stahl v. Redcaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| B.A.W. v. T.L.W., IIIgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ragoligreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Crawfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Moody, K.green | 1 | 1 |
| Alabama v. Sheltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Argersinger v. Hamlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nexus Real Estate v. Erickson, J., Appeal of: JLBgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. County Investigating Grand Jurygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Bowdengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Mutzabaughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Griffingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Deckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| G.A. v. D.L.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hyle v. Hylegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Flannery v. Ibertigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carborundum Co. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth v. Walshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Humphreys v. DeRossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guadagnino v. Montie
green
2 sentences1995In Guadagnino v. Montie, 435 Pa. Super. 603 , 646 A.2d 1257 (1994), the Superior Court determined that where a litigant is given adequate notice that a custody order will be challenged in the course of a contempt hearing, and where the trial judge is adequately familiar with the history of the case, the trial court may transfer custody at the conclusion of the contempt hearing when it is in the best interests of the child. 1995In Guadagnino v. Montie, 435 Pa. Super. 603 , 646 A.2d 1257 (1994), the Superior Court determined that where a litigant is given adequate notice that a custody order will be challenged in the course of a contempt hearing, and where the trial judge is adequately familiar with the history of the case, the trial court may transfer custody at the conclusion of the contempt hearing when it is in the best interests of the child. | 4 | 1995–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2018To the extent the trial court entered a finding of criminal contempt against [Mother], did the trial court err by denying [Mother] her procedural due process right to prior notice that a contempt hearing was going to be held? [ See Com. v. Jackson ], 367 Pa.Super. 6 , 532 A.2d 28 , 32-33 ( [ Pa.Super.] 1987). 2018To the extent the trial court entered a finding of criminal contempt against [Mother], did the trial court err by denying [Mother] her procedural due process right to prior notice that a contempt hearing was going to be held? [ See Com. v. Jackson ], 367 Pa.Super. 6 , 532 A.2d 28 , 32-33 ( [ Pa.Super.] 1987). | 3 | 1993–2018 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Walker, T.
green
2 sentences2025King raises the following issues on appeal: (1) Did the trial court err by proceeding with the contempt hearing as if King were a proposed contemnor even though he had never been properly served with the [p]etition for [c]ontempt and no relief was sought therein against him ____________________________________________ 13 Because King’s notice of appeal contained more than one docket number, in violation of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Court instructed King to file an amended notice of appeal properly including the sole trial court docket number at which he appealed, 21- 2025King raises the following issues on appeal: (1) Did the trial court err by proceeding with the contempt hearing as if King were a proposed contemnor even though he had never been properly served with the [p]etition for [c]ontempt and no relief was sought therein against him ____________________________________________ 13 Because King’s notice of appeal contained more than one docket number, in violation of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), our Court instructed King to file an amended notice of appeal properly including the sole trial court docket number at which he appealed, 21- | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Oliver
green
2 sentences2021Therefore, Appellant did not knowingly and intelligently decide to testify at a contempt hearing, and his ____________________________________________ Pounders, 521 U.S. at 988 (quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275 , (1948)). -7- J-S18040-21 counsel had no opportunity to prepare or mount a defense to the contempt charge of which both counsel and client were unaware. 2012Because they were denied these rights, we remand for a new contempt hearing in which Appellants are “advised of the charges against [them], have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in [their] behalf, either by way of defense or explanation.” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 275 , 68 S.Ct. 499 . | 2 | 2012–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Pruitt
green
2 sentences2021Similarly, we find the language of Pruitt apt that “Appellant could not have objected to the procedures used in the hearing as it was not apparent that the court was conducting a contempt hearing.” 764 A.2d at 576 . 2021This Court vacated the conviction, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the -9- J-S18040-21 contempt conviction and that the trial court had failed “to ensure that certain procedural safeguards had been protected,” specifically that the “contemnor be afforded notice of the contempt hearing so that he or she may present a defense.” Id. at 576 . | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Kolansky
green
2 sentences2017Where “the evidence is so weak and ____________________________________________ 4 At the contempt hearing, defense counsel cited to Kolansky, supra, to support his argument that Reddrum did not have the requisite intent to be guilty of criminal contempt under section 4132(2). 2015Indeed, in Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2002), this Court encountered a similar procedural posture and we held that – although the contempt case was filed on the municipal court docket – the contempt hearing, in fact, occurred before the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and we had jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742, which grants this Court jurisdiction over “appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742. | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Allen
green
2 sentences1989The majority in Warrick stated the following by way of a footnote: Allen [Commonwealth v. Allen, 506 Pa. 500 , 486 A.2d 363 (1984), aff'g in part and rev’g in part, 322 Pa.Super. 424 , 469 A.2d 1063 (1983) ] involved a contempt hearing as opposed to a summary proceeding. 1989The majority in Warrick stated the following by way of a footnote: Allen [Commonwealth v. Allen, 506 Pa. 500 , 486 A.2d 363 (1984), aff'g in part and rev’g in part, 322 Pa.Super. 424 , 469 A.2d 1063 (1983) ] involved a contempt hearing as opposed to a summary proceeding. | 2 | 1985–1989 |
Muraco v. Pitulski
green
1 sentence2026Id. (emphasis original); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 1910.25(f) (reiterating the requisite information to be given an obligor in a civil contempt proceeding). 6 These rules require not only the disclosure of the contemnor’s critical financial information relating to their ability to pay, but the production by the contemnor of such evidence at the contempt hearing. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Harcar v. Harcar
green
1 sentence2025(Footnote Continued Next Page) - 18 - J-A10026-25 did not abuse its discretion, we have considered that the “focus of a contempt hearing is very narrow[] and is confined to a consideration of whether the specific order before the court has been violated.” Harcar, 982 A.2d at 1236 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
E.K. v. J.R.A.
green
1 sentence2025“The essential due process requisites for a finding of civil contempt are notice and an opportunity to be heard.” E.K., 237 A.3d at 526-27 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gunther v. Bolus
green
1 sentence2024Whether a fine imposed for a contempt violation is permissible depends on the court’s “dominant purpose.” Gunther, supra at 1016 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Commonwealth v. Yerby green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Habjan v. Habjan green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Pounders v. Watson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Commonwealth v. Snell green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Commonwealth v. Sullens green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Commonwealth v. Pierce green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Commonwealth v. Johnson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Moeller green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Commonwealth v. Kelly green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| C.A.J. v. D.S.M. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth v. Ricker, D., Aplt. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Ricker green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Luketic green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Com., Dep v. Cromwell Tp., Huntingdon Cty. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Protection v. Cromwell Township green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Commonwealth v. Moody neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Commonwealth v. Edwards green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Contempt of Cullen green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Jenkins v. Jenkins neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Rhoades v. Pryce green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Gaster v. Gaster green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Commonwealth v. Brown green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Darby v. Darby green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Witherow v. Witherow green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| McMillen v. McMillen green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Commonwealth v. Mayberry green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Commonwealth v. Warrick neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.
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.