Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-6-301 (2026)
Acts and omissions constituting contempt
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The following acts or omissions in respect to a court or its proceedings are contempts of the authority of the court:
disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the course of a trial or other judicial proceeding;
breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding;
misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, counsel, clerk, sheriff, or other person appointed or elected to perform a judicial or ministerial service;
deceit, or abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, by a party to an action or special proceeding;
disobedience of any lawful judgment, order or process of the court;
acting as an officer, attorney or counselor, of a court without authority;
rescuing any person or property that is in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of the court;
unlawfully detaining a witness or party to an action while going to, remaining at, or returning from, the court where the action is on the calendar for trial;
any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court;
disobedience of a subpoena duly served, or refusing to be sworn or to answer as a witness;
when summoned as a juror in a court, neglecting to attend or serve, or improperly conversing with a party to an action to be tried at the court, or with any other person, concerning the merits of an action, or receiving a communication from a party or other person in respect to it, without immediately disclosing the communication to the court; and
disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate or officer of the lawful judgment, order or process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding contrary to law, after the action or special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal, magistrate or officer. Disobedience of the lawful orders or process of a judicial officer is also a contempt of the authority of the officer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021).
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
Iota v. Davco Mgmt. Co., 2016 UT App 231 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “The court also concluded that the collateral bar doctrine precluded Davco from arguing that the Ex Parte Order was improperly issued: Davco and David Fisher violated Utah Code Annotated § 78B-6-301 by knowingly disobeying this Court’s Ex Parte Order in failing to turn over the…”
Cougar Canyon Loan, LLC v. Cypress Fund, LLC, 2019 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “¶15 As a final point on appeal, 11 Robert N. Baxter, one of the principals of Cypress Capital III, LLC, argues that the trial court abused its discretion in holding him in contempt.”
Iota, LLC v. Davco Mgmt. Co., 2012 UT App 218 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(12) (2008) (listing "[dlisobedience of the lawful orders or process of a judicial officer" as an action constituting contempt); id.”
Rosser v. Rosser, 2019 UT App 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “4 Ronald contends that none of the twelve grounds apply here, and that therefore the district court was without statutory authority to hold him in contempt. We agree with Ronald. ¶11 In this case, while it is clear that the district court found that Ronald was in contempt of…”
Gardner v. Gardner, 2012 UT App 374 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “" See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(5) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
State v. Mason, 2021 UT App 41 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “We Reject Mason’s Challenges to the Court’s Contempt Finding ¶10 The court found Mason in contempt based on both subsections (1) and (5) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301. Mason raises challenges with respect to the court’s findings under both provisions.”
Dickman Fam. Props., Inc. v. White, 2013 UT App 116 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(9) (2008). If a person is found to be in contempt, the court may impose various sanctions, including a fine, incarceration, or a compensatory monetary award to a party aggrieved by another's contempt.”
Peeples v. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “The district court found that, while Father may have committed occasional violations of the terms of the decree, “[t]he court has not received evidence that any denial of physical visitation on the part of [Father] was systemic, deliberate, or pathogenic enough to satisfy the…”
Clarke v. Clarke, 2012 UT App 328 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(5) (2008). "As a general rule, in order to prove contempt for failure to comply with a court order it must be shown that the person cited for contempt knew what was required, had the ability to comply, and intentionally failed or refused to do so.”
Widdison v. Kirkham, 2018 UT App 205 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “Wife's Contempt ¶ 11 Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding her in contempt on remand for failing to comply with the 2012 Order that required her to sign the necessary tax documents.”
Knowlton v. Knowlton, 2023 UT App 16 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(5) (LexisNexis 2018).”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(1) — 2 cases
State v. Mason, 2021 UT App 41 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “We Reject Mason’s Challenges to the Court’s Contempt Finding ¶10 The court found Mason in contempt based on both subsections (1) and (5) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301. Mason raises challenges with respect to the court’s findings under both provisions.”
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(11) — 1 case
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(12) — 1 case
Iota, LLC v. Davco Mgmt. Co., 2012 UT App 218 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(12) (2008) (listing "[dlisobedience of the lawful orders or process of a judicial officer" as an action constituting contempt); id.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(2) — 1 case
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(3) — 1 case
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(4) — 3 cases
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
Rosser v. Rosser, 2019 UT App 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “4 Ronald contends that none of the twelve grounds apply here, and that therefore the district court was without statutory authority to hold him in contempt. We agree with Ronald. ¶11 In this case, while it is clear that the district court found that Ronald was in contempt of…”
Wilson v. Wilson (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(5) — 15 cases
Cougar Canyon Loan, LLC v. Cypress Fund, LLC, 2019 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “¶15 As a final point on appeal, 11 Robert N. Baxter, one of the principals of Cypress Capital III, LLC, argues that the trial court abused its discretion in holding him in contempt.”
Gardner v. Gardner, 2012 UT App 374 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “" See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(5) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Peeples v. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “The district court found that, while Father may have committed occasional violations of the terms of the decree, “[t]he court has not received evidence that any denial of physical visitation on the part of [Father] was systemic, deliberate, or pathogenic enough to satisfy the…”
Iota, LLC v. Davco Mgmt. Co., 2012 UT App 218 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(12) (2008) (listing "[dlisobedience of the lawful orders or process of a judicial officer" as an action constituting contempt); id.”
Clarke v. Clarke, 2012 UT App 328 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(5) (2008). "As a general rule, in order to prove contempt for failure to comply with a court order it must be shown that the person cited for contempt knew what was required, had the ability to comply, and intentionally failed or refused to do so.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(6) — 1 case
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(8) — 1 case
Rosser v. Rosser, 2021 UT 71 (Utah 2021). “The court of appeals held that under subsection (4) of Utah Code section 78B-6-301 (the Contempt Statute), deceitful conduct during litigation does not rise to the level of contempt unless it is directed at the court.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-301(9) — 1 case
Dickman Fam. Props., Inc. v. White, 2013 UT App 116 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-301(9) (2008). If a person is found to be in contempt, the court may impose various sanctions, including a fine, incarceration, or a compensatory monetary award to a party aggrieved by another's contempt.”
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.