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.
12 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1943–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Norton v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2021The disobedience may be reluctant, polite, and regretful, as it appears to have been in Poindexter[9] (“[T]here need not be a showing of malice or disrespect in order for a trial court to hold an attorney in criminal contempt.” 389 S.W.3d at 118), or it may be openly defiant, as it was in Norton v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky. 2001) (After being found guilty, “[a]ppellant erupted in what he now modestly describes as an ‘emotional outburst.’ ”), but to be contemptuous the violation of a duty must involve a duty the court meant to enforce. 2005Were it otherwise, “The general rule is that any legislation that hampers judicial action or interferes with the discharge of judicial functions is unconstitutional.” Norton v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Ky.2001). | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat 2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat | 3 | 3 |
Songer v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat 2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat | 3 | 3 |
Alfred v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) (“When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing.”); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) (“[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty.”); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) (“When a probationer violat 2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) (“When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing.”); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) (“[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty.”); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) (“When a probationer violat 2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat | 3 | 3 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat 2010E.g., Alfred v. State, 758 P.2d 130, 132 (Alaska Ct.App. 1988) ("When a defendant violates a condition of probation, we believe that fairness requires that the court adhere to the terms of its agreement, and conduct a probation revocation hearing, not a contempt hearing."); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513, 516 (D.C.1989) ("[T]he only appropriate sanction [for a violation of probation] is a withdrawal of the previously afforded favorable treatment rather than the imposition of an additional penalty."); Williams v. State, 72 Md.App. 233 , 528 A.2d 507, 508 (1987) ("When a probationer violat | 3 | 3 |
AW v. Com.green2 sentences2018"A contempt sanction in a contempt hearing for the violation of the court's order is certainly distinguishable from a sentence set at a dispositional hearing for a public offense." A.W. , 163 S.W.3d at 7 . 2008Also, “[a] contempt sanction in a contempt hearing for the violation of the court’s order is certainly distinguishable from a sentence set at a dispositional hearing for a public offense.” A.W., 163 S.W.3d at 7. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crowder v. Rearden
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling
green
2 sentences2010In ruling that Appellants’ petition did not satisfy the writ standard, the Court of Appeals relied on Newell Enterprises, Inc. v. Bowling, 158 S.W.3d 750 (Ky.2005), in which we denied a petition for a writ to prohibit a contempt hearing and noted that “Appellants have not been held in contempt. 2010They petitioned the Court of Appeals before the circuit court held the scheduled contempt hearing.” 158 S.W.3d at 757 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2007In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 118 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), the Supreme Court recognized that the protections against double jeopardy extend to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions. 2007In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 118 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), the Supreme Court recognized that the protections against double jeopardy extend to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Warfield Natural Gas Company v. Allen
green
2 sentences1961In Warfield Natural Gas Co. v. Allen, 236 Ky. 358 , 33 S.W.2d 34, 35 , we said: “To accomplish the above ends, and as an aid in the orderly dispatch of litigation, courts are vested with the right to adopt and promulgate reasonable rules for the guidance of litigants and their counsel and which they are as much under duty to observe as if the rules had been created by statutory enactment in the form of a Code of Practice. 1961In Warfield Natural Gas Co. v. Allen, 236 Ky. 358 , 33 S.W.2d 34, 35 , we said: “To accomplish the above ends, and as an aid in the orderly dispatch of litigation, courts are vested with the right to adopt and promulgate reasonable rules for the guidance of litigants and their counsel and which they are as much under duty to observe as if the rules had been created by statutory enactment in the form of a Code of Practice. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Robinson v. Robinson
neutral
2 sentences1955In Robinson v. Robinson, 123 Misc. 80 , 204 N.Y.S. 329 , the Supreme .Court .of N.ew' York held that where .a defendant had entered a written appearance to “this proceeding” in response to' a contempt rule, it did' not constitute a general appearance in the action in which the motion for the rule was made. 1955In Robinson v. Robinson, 123 Misc. 80 , 204 N.Y.S. 329 , the Supreme .Court .of N.ew' York held that where .a defendant had entered a written appearance to “this proceeding” in response to' a contempt rule, it did' not constitute a general appearance in the action in which the motion for the rule was made. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Marcum v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1955In Marcum v. Commonwealth, 272 Ky. 1 , 113 S.W.2d 462 , where non-parties were cited for contempt, it was held that their motion to set aside the judgment under which the contempt rule issued constituted an entry of appearance in the action. 1955In Marcum v. Commonwealth, 272 Ky. 1 , 113 S.W.2d 462 , where non-parties were cited for contempt, it was held that their motion to set aside the judgment under which the contempt rule issued constituted an entry of appearance in the action. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Simon Piano Co. v. Fairfield
green
2 sentences1955In Simon Piano Co. v. Fairfield, 103 Wash. 206 , 174 P. 457, 458 , the question was whether or not the appearance in response to a contempt rule and the actual purging of the contempt by compliance with the order of the court constituted an appearance in the action in which the order was entered! 1955In Simon Piano Co. v. Fairfield, 103 Wash. 206 , 174 P. 457, 458 , the question was whether or not the appearance in response to a contempt rule and the actual purging of the contempt by compliance with the order of the court constituted an appearance in the action in which the order was entered! | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Riley v. Wallace
green
1 sentence1943Riley et al. v. Wallace, Judge, 184 Ky. 471 , 222 S. W. 1085 , 11 A. L. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.