continued claim in District of Columbia

1975And as we wrote in Peyton v. United States, D.C.App., 275 A.2d 229, 230 (1971), quoting from Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 704 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 , 86 S.Ct. 407 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965): “ * * * An abandonment must be made to appear affirmatively by the party relying on it, and an intention to abandon will not ordinarily be presumed, and this is particularly true if the conduct of the owner can be explained consistently with a continued claim.

1975And as we wrote in Peyton v. United States, D.C.App., 275 A. 2d 229, 230 (1971), quoting from Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 704 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 , 86 S.Ct. 407 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965): "* * * An abandonment must be made to appear affirmatively by the party relying on it, and an intention to abandon will not ordinarily be presumed, and this is particularly true if the conduct of the owner can be explained consistently with a continued claim.

1975And as we wrote in Peyton v. United States, D.C.App., 275 A.2d 229, 230 (1971), quoting from Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 704 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 , 86 S.Ct. 407 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965): “ * * * An abandonment must be made to appear affirmatively by the party relying on it, and an intention to abandon will not ordinarily be presumed, and this is particularly true if the conduct of the owner can be explained consistently with a continued claim.

1975And as we wrote in Peyton v. United States, D.C.App., 275 A. 2d 229, 230 (1971), quoting from Friedman v. United States, 347 F.2d 697, 704 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 , 86 S.Ct. 407 , 15 L.Ed.2d 354 (1965): "* * * An abandonment must be made to appear affirmatively by the party relying on it, and an intention to abandon will not ordinarily be presumed, and this is particularly true if the conduct of the owner can be explained consistently with a continued claim.

1990D.D. v. M.T., supra, 550 A.2d at 44 . 28 Where the purpose of contempt is to compel a party to comply, the court “must consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by the continued violation, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the desired result.” United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701 , 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) (footnote omitted). *191 “The decision whether to hold a party in civil contempt is confided to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will be reversed on appeal only upon a clear showing of abu

1990D.D. v. M.T., supra, 550 A.2d at 44 . 28 Where the purpose of contempt is to compel a party to comply, the court “must consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by the continued violation, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the desired result.” United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701 , 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) (footnote omitted). *191 “The decision whether to hold a party in civil contempt is confided to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will be reversed on appeal only upon a clear showing of abu

1971Proof of abandonment must be made by the one asserting it by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence.” Friedman v. United States, supra, citing Linscomb v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 199 F.2d 431, 435 (8th Cir. 1952).