A. In all cases of indirect contempt the party charged with contempt shall be notified in writing of the accusation and have a reasonable time for defense; and the party so charged shall, upon demand, have a trial by jury. B. In the event the party so charged shall demand a trial by jury, the court shall thereupon set the case for trial at the next jury term of said court, unless such time is waived by the party so charged, in which event the case shall be set for trial at a time determined by the court. The court shall fix the amount of an
appearance bond to be posted by said party charged, which bond shall be signed by said party and two sureties, which sureties together shall qualify by showing ownership of real property, the equal of which property shall be in double the amount of the bond, or, in the alternative, the party charged may deposit with the court clerk cash equal to the amount of the appearance bond. C. In a case of indirect contempt, it shall not be necessary for the party alleging indirect contempt, or an attorney for that party, to attend an initial appearance or arraignment hearing for the party charged with contempt, unless the party alleging the indirect contempt is seeking a cash bond. If a cash bond is not being requested, the clerk of the court shall, upon request, notify the party alleging the indirect contempt of the date of the trial. R.L. 1910, § 2279. Amended by Laws 1963, c. 55, § 1, emerg. eff. May 13, 1963; Laws 1990, c. 309, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1990; Laws 1993, c. 73, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Laws 1997, c. 403, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1960–2010 · leading case:
Henry v. Schmidt, 2004 OK 34, 91 P.3d 651.
Henry v. Schmidt, 2004 OK 34, 91 P.3d 651.
“…1201 (1983). 37 . All defendants in indirect contempt proceedings have a statutory right to be tried by a jury. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 567 (2001).”
Terry v. Gassett, 740 P.2d 141 (Okla. 1987).
· cites it 5× “The trial court placed it on the jury docket and as required by 21 O.S.1981 § 567 set an appearance bond (of $500.”
Whillock v. Whillock, 550 P.2d 558 (Okla. 1976).
“” 21 O.S.1971 § 567, provides in part: “In all cases of indirect contempt the party charged with contempt shall be notified in writing of the accusation and have a reasonable time for defense; and the party so charged shall, upon demand, have a trial by jury.”
Pittman v. State, 718 P.2d 366 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“” 21 O.S.1981, § 567 (emphasis added). This Court has also held “[i]f a contempt is indirect, the person so charged, upon demand, has a right of trial by jury as to guilt or innocence.”
Collins v. Collins, 898 P.2d 1316 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
“21 O.S. § 567. In the present case, the trial court awarded the California property to Wife “as her sole and separate property, free and clear of any right, title and interest of [Husband].”
Parker v. Henry, 559 P.2d 1249 (Okla. 1977).
“We conclude the order of delivery entered by respondent on November 3rd on an unverified petition and without bond being executed is of no force and effect and respondent is prohibited from enforcement of the specified order.”
Nuckolls v. Nuckolls, 356 P.2d 1089 (Okla. 1960).
“This is an indirect contempt proceeding and under Title 21 O.S.1951 § 567, a party charged with indirect contempt shall be notified in writing of the accusations.”
Smith v. Smith, 839 P.2d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992).
“2d 982 (1942); 21 O.S.1991 § 567. There is nothing in the record supporting the woman’s statement that a jury trial was expressly waived.”
Pierce v. Stroud, 473 P.2d 325 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970).
“” *327 Title 21 O.S.1961, Section 567, provides: “In all cases of indirect contempt the party charged with contempt shall be notified in writing of the accusation and have a reasonable time for defense; and the party so charged shall, upon demand, have a trial by jury.”
In re Marriage of Sager, 2010 OK CIV APP 130, 249 P.3d 91.
“36 total purge fee, Ex-husband further argues the amount of each obligation alleged in her Contempt Application that became due and owing after the application was filed should not have been included in the purge fee.”
Million v. Wright, 831 P.2d 651 (Okla. 1992).
“The trial court shall, in its discretion, set bond for petitioner’s appearance at such trial, or make such other arrangement to secure his appearance as may be permitted under Okla.Stat. tit. 21, § 567 (Supp.1990), and Terry v.”
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.