476.120. Punishment for contempt. — Punishment for contempt may be by fine or imprisonment in the jail of the county where the court may be sitting, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1953–2010 · leading case:
Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. 1976).
Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Under the authority of Section 476.120 the court sentenced defendant to 90 days imprisonment in jail with the proviso that, "After serving 6 days, he is to be released from custody on probation for one (1) year, under the supervision of the Prosecuting Attorney, on condition he…”
In Re Marriage of Vanet, 544 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The matter was heard on November 4, 1975, at the conclusion of which the husband was found guilty of “indirect criminal contempt” and, ostensibly under the authority of Section 476.120, RSMo 1969, he was sentenced to ninety days imprisonment in the Jackson County Jail with the…”
Smith v. Pace, 313 S.W.3d 124 (Mo. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” Section 476.120, RSMo 2000. 11 . The question here is similar to the question of a court's need to know whether the state seeks incarceration to determine whether the court must appoint counsel for an indigent defendant.”
State Ex Rel. Burrell-El v. Autrey, 752 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “" Section 476.120 provides that punishment for contempt may be by fine or imprisonment in the discretion of the court.”
Curtis v. Tozer, 374 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
· cites it 3× “As held herein these petitioners were found guilty of criminal contempt, and in such cases the punishment is punitive to vindicate the authority of the court and to uphold the majesty of the law.”
Chem. Fireproofing Corp. v. Bronska, 553 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “It is consistent with this punitive purpose to imprison a criminal contemnor for defying a court order or injunction regardless of whether the injunction is prohibitory or mandatory, § 476.120, RSMo 1969. The question is not whether imprisonment will force the contemnor to…”
State v. Lingle, 140 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“110(5); § 476.120. As DeLong was already serving five life sentences without the possibility of probation or parole, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that ordering DeLong to testify would have been futile.”
State ex rel. Robinson v. Hartenbach, 754 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Section 476.120, RSMo 1986. Premise Number 2 — A term of imprisonment in the county jail cannot exceed 1 year.”
In Re Page, 257 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 3× “See Section 476.120 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. All concur.”
Hoffmeister v. Tod, 349 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. 1961).
“…thereof he shall be imprisoned in the jail of the County of Cole, State of Missouri, for a term of thirty days. See § 476.120. AH concur.”
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.