contempt hearing in Wyoming

2018Specifically, Mr. Rigdon contends that res judicata should have barred Ms. Rigdon from testifying at the contempt hearing "as to the quantity of the gold and silver that she believed the parties had during their marriage, and as to the amount the gold and silver might be worth." "The application of res judicata is a question of law, subject to de novo review." Graham v. State , 2011 WY 130 , ¶ 8, 261 P.3d 239 , 241 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Moore v. State , 2009 WY 108 , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d 271 , 276 (Wyo. 2009) ). [¶12] Mr. Rigdon's assertion is fundamentally flawed, because res judicata is not a rule o

2018Specifically, Mr. Rigdon contends that res judicata should have barred Ms. Rigdon from testifying at the contempt hearing "as to the quantity of the gold and silver that she believed the parties had during their marriage, and as to the amount the gold and silver might be worth." "The application of res judicata is a question of law, subject to de novo review." Graham v. State , 2011 WY 130 , ¶ 8, 261 P.3d 239 , 241 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Moore v. State , 2009 WY 108 , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d 271 , 276 (Wyo. 2009) ). [¶12] Mr. Rigdon's assertion is fundamentally flawed, because res judicata is not a rule o

2018Comm'rs for Uinta County , 854 P.2d 683 , 686 (Wyo. 1993) (emphasis omitted). " Res judicata generally prevents parties from presenting the same claim in subsequent actions once that claim has been adjudicated." Rawlinson v. Wallerich , 2006 WY 52 , ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 204 , 207 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Eklund v. Farmers Ins.

2018Comm'rs for Uinta County , 854 P.2d 683 , 686 (Wyo. 1993) (emphasis omitted). " Res judicata generally prevents parties from presenting the same claim in subsequent actions once that claim has been adjudicated." Rawlinson v. Wallerich , 2006 WY 52 , ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 204 , 207 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Eklund v. Farmers Ins.

2018Comm'rs for Uinta County , 854 P.2d 683 , 686 (Wyo. 1993) (emphasis omitted). " Res judicata generally prevents parties from presenting the same claim in subsequent actions once that claim has been adjudicated." Rawlinson v. Wallerich , 2006 WY 52 , ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 204 , 207 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Eklund v. Farmers Ins.

2018Specifically, Mr. Rigdon contends that res judicata should have barred Ms. Rigdon from testifying at the contempt hearing "as to the quantity of the gold and silver that she believed the parties had during their marriage, and as to the amount the gold and silver might be worth." "The application of res judicata is a question of law, subject to de novo review." Graham v. State , 2011 WY 130 , ¶ 8, 261 P.3d 239 , 241 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Moore v. State , 2009 WY 108 , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d 271 , 276 (Wyo. 2009) ). [¶12] Mr. Rigdon's assertion is fundamentally flawed, because res judicata is not a rule o

2018Specifically, Mr. Rigdon contends that res judicata should have barred Ms. Rigdon from testifying at the contempt hearing "as to the quantity of the gold and silver that she believed the parties had during their marriage, and as to the amount the gold and silver might be worth." "The application of res judicata is a question of law, subject to de novo review." Graham v. State , 2011 WY 130 , ¶ 8, 261 P.3d 239 , 241 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Moore v. State , 2009 WY 108 , ¶ 20, 215 P.3d 271 , 276 (Wyo. 2009) ). [¶12] Mr. Rigdon's assertion is fundamentally flawed, because res judicata is not a rule o

2013Turner, 131 S.Ct. at 2513-14 . [111] Turner appealed, claiming the United States Constitution entitled him to appointed counsel at the contempt hearing.

1992In Levis v. Markee, 771 S.W.2d 928 (Mo. App.1989), a Missouri appellate court held that a contempt hearing did not constitute a custody determination governed by the UCCJA.

1992In Levis v. Markee, 771 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App.1989), a Missouri appellate court held that a contempt hearing did not constitute a custody determination governed by the UCCJA.

1989But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441 , 31 S.Ct. 492, 498 , 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911).

1989But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441 , 31 S.Ct. 492, 498 , 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911).

1983Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial District, supra. NATURE OF CONTEMPT IN THIS CASE The transcript of the contempt hearing, which reflects the questioning of Mrs. Anderson by the court, is instructive on the court’s purpose in imposing the contempt order: “Q. [By the court] Well, ma’am, did you testify at that [divorce] trial?

1983Horn v. District Court, Ninth Judicial District, supra. NATURE OF CONTEMPT IN THIS CASE The transcript of the contempt hearing, which reflects the questioning of Mrs. Anderson by the court, is instructive on the court's purpose in imposing the contempt order: "Q. [By the court] Well, ma'am, did you testify at that [divorce] trial?