Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-1 (2026)
Disobedience of process
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. A person who is guilty of any willful disobedience of any process, or any order lawfully issued:
(1) by any court of record, or by the proper officer of the court;
(2) under the authority of law, or the direction of the court; and
(3) after the process or order has been served upon the person;
is guilty of an indirect contempt of the court that issued the process or order.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-7-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.43.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hosp., Inc., 827 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hosp., Inc., 827 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “One prerequisite of a contempt finding under Indiana Code § 34-47-3-1, which establishes procedures for indirect contempt, is that "the process or order has been served upon the person" against whom contempt is sought.”
In Re the Marriage of: Amy Steele-Giri v. Brian K. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119 (Ind. 2016). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-1. The parties have joint legal custody of J.”
City of Gary v. Major, 822 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005). “Indiana Code § 34-47-3-1 provides in relevant part: "A person who is guilty of any willful disobedience of any process, or any order lawfully issued: (1) by any court of record .”
Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “On October 4, 2005, in a separate action, the State charged Jones with indirect contempt, under Indiana Code Sections 34-47-3-1 and 34-47-3-5, for her failure to appear at the October 7th deposition.”
Heagy v. Kean, 864 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “After three hearings, the court denied Heagy’s petitions for custody change and for contempt citation. DISCUSSION AND DECISION 1.”
Carter v. Johnson, 745 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-1. Yet it appears undisputed that Carter received none of the due process protections that are part and parcel of the indirect contempt statutory scheme.”
Swadner v. Swadner, 897 N.E.2d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Contempt Finding Indiana Code § 34-47-3-1 provides in relevant part: "A person who is guilty of any willful disobedience of any process, or any order lawfully issued: (1) by any court of record .”
Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-1. As such, this is a case of indirect contempt.”
Emery v. Sautter, 788 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-1. The party in contempt bears the burden of demonstrating that his acts were not "willful.”
Sandra Akiwumi v. Eric Akiwumi, 23 N.E.3d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-1 provides, A person who is guilty of any willful disobedience of any process, or any order lawfully issued: (1) by any court of record, or by the proper officer of the court; (2) under the authority of law, or the direction of the court; and (3)…”
In Re Paternity of MF, 956 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “2d at 1210 (citing Ind.Code § 34-47-3-1). As such, this case involves indirect contempt.”
Flash v. Holtsclaw, 789 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “At its conclusion, the court found Flash in contempt, ordered him to serve the previously suspended sixty days in jail as well as an additional ninety days, denied Flash's motion for a protective order, and extended Holtsclaw's protective order against Flash to November 28,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.