Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5 (2026)
Service of rule upon defendant; procedure
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. (a) In all cases of indirect contempts, the person charged with indirect contempt is entitled:
(1) before answering the charge; or
(2) being punished for the contempt;
to be served with a rule of the court against which the contempt was alleged to have been committed.
(b) The rule to show cause must:
(1) clearly and distinctly set forth the facts that are alleged to constitute the contempt;
(2) specify the time and place of the facts with reasonable certainty, as to inform the defendant of the nature and circumstances of the charge against the defendant; and
(3) specify a time and place at which the defendant is required to show cause, in the court, why the defendant should not be attached and punished for such contempt.
(c) The court shall, on proper showing, extend the time provided under subsection (b)(3) to give the defendant a reasonable and just opportunity to be purged of the contempt.
(d) A rule provided for under subsection (b) may not issue until the facts alleged to constitute the contempt have been:
(1) brought to the knowledge of the court by an information; and
(2) duly verified by the oath of affirmation of some officers of the court or other responsible person.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-7-8.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.43.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: In re the Marriage of: Thomas Todd Reynolds v. Tricia Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Todd Reynolds v. Tricia Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016). “” Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5 (a). We are not convinced, however, that a trial court itself must bear the burden of articulating the specific facts alleging contempt in its Order to Appear and Show Cause when a moving party has already done so and has properly served the defendant…”
Paternity of J.T.I. v. Guyton, 875 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. If no rule to show cause is issued in compliance with this statute, a court may lack the authority to hold a person in contempt.”
Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “See Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. In Mitchell, the appellant received service of the petition alleging that she was in contempt of the trial court's order.”
In Re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hosp., Inc., 827 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “[13] The rule to show cause is governed by Indiana Code § 34-47-3-5, which provides in part: (a) In all cases of indirect contempts, the person charged with indirect contempt is entitled: (1) before answering the charge; or (2) being punished for the contempt; to be served with…”
Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5 (1999). 13 . Jack's jail sentence also did not arise from the trial court's July 11, 2003 order of contempt for which Jack did not receive representation.”
Lesh v. Chandler, 944 N.E.2d 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Lesh also argues he cannot be found in contempt of the terms of the preliminary injunction because the trial court did not issue a rule to show cause pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. That statute states: (a) In all cases of indirect contempts, the person charged with indirect…”
Emery v. Sautter, 788 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Notice In objecting to the finding of contempt, Emery first charges that the trial court failed to abide by the procedural requirements *859 of Indiana Code section 34-47-3-5. Specifically, Emery urges that he was improperly found in contempt for failing to pay certain medical…”
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs. v. Charles, 919 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 provides that in all cases of indirect contempt, the person charged is entitled to be served with a rule to show cause before answering the charge or being punished for contempt.”
Sandra Akiwumi v. Eric Akiwumi, 23 N.E.3d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Due Process protections for indirect contempt proceedings are codified in Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5, which provides, (a) In all cases of indirect contempts, the person charged with indirect contempt is entitled: (1) before answering the charge; or (2) being punished for the…”
Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “First, she argues that there were procedural irregularities because the trial court did not conduct a rule to show cause hearing pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5. Second, she challenges the substance of the contempt citation on the basis that she did comply with the…”
Troyer v. Troyer, 867 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “In cases of indirect contempt, Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 provides “clear due process protections.”
Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “See Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. Thus, there is no basis for a finding of contempt.”
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(a): 5 cases
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Todd Reynolds v. Tricia Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016). “” Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5 (a). We are not convinced, however, that a trial court itself must bear the burden of articulating the specific facts alleging contempt in its Order to Appear and Show Cause when a moving party has already done so and has properly served the defendant…”
Troyer v. Troyer, 867 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “In cases of indirect contempt, Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 provides “clear due process protections.”
Russell Finnegan v. State of Indiana, 240 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2024).
T.L.E. v. A.D.H. (mem. dec.), No. 53A04-1612-PO-2901 (Ind. Ct. App. July 19, 2017).
Leona Rae Hawk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 06A01-1411-MI-508 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(a)(1): 1 case
Paternity of J.T.I. v. Guyton, 875 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. If no rule to show cause is issued in compliance with this statute, a court may lack the authority to hold a person in contempt.”
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(a)(l): 1 case
Paternity of J.T.I. v. Guyton, 875 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. If no rule to show cause is issued in compliance with this statute, a court may lack the authority to hold a person in contempt.”
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(b): 4 cases
Paternity of J.T.I. v. Guyton, 875 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 34-47-3-5. If no rule to show cause is issued in compliance with this statute, a court may lack the authority to hold a person in contempt.”
Jason Stanke v. Nicole Swickard, 43 N.E.3d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Leona Rae Hawk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 06A01-1411-MI-508 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).
Caitilin Ashley v. Richard F. Ashley, Jr. (mem. dec.), No. 19A-DR-354 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2019).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(b)(3): 1 case
Russell Finnegan v. State of Indiana, 240 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2024).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(c): 6 cases
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Todd Reynolds v. Tricia Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016). “” Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5 (a). We are not convinced, however, that a trial court itself must bear the burden of articulating the specific facts alleging contempt in its Order to Appear and Show Cause when a moving party has already done so and has properly served the defendant…”
Troyer v. Troyer, 867 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “In cases of indirect contempt, Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 provides “clear due process protections.”
John Randall Strietelmeier v. Tammie Nichols Strietelmeier (mem. dec.), No. 03A01-1608-DR-1831 (Ind. Ct. App. May 11, 2017).
T.L.E. v. A.D.H. (mem. dec.), No. 53A04-1612-PO-2901 (Ind. Ct. App. July 19, 2017).
In Re: The Paternity of S.R.W., M.R.B. v. B.T.T. (mem. dec.), No. 02A05-1701-JP-144 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2017).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(d): 2 cases
S.W. Ex Rel. Wesolowski v. Kurtic, 950 N.E.2d 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Russell Finnegan v. State of Indiana, 240 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2024).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(d)(1): 1 case
Leona Rae Hawk v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 06A01-1411-MI-508 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2015).
Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5(d)(2): 4 cases
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehs. v. Charles, 919 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 provides that in all cases of indirect contempt, the person charged is entitled to be served with a rule to show cause before answering the charge or being punished for contempt.”
In Re Benson, 955 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Benson v. Co-All., LLP, 955 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Bioconvergence, LLC & Alisa K. Wright, individually v. Kathryn S. Eddy (mem. dec.), No. 18A-PL-1351 (Ind. Ct. App. May 21, 2019).
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.