Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Indirect contempt is something that is associated with civil and constructive contempt and involves a failure to follow court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be considered a disturbance, such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassment of any other party in the courtroom ...
Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Florida circuit court which held the Miami Herald in contempt of court for publishing a scathing publication of that court was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
An order to show cause is a type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court.Courts commonly use orders to show cause when the judge needs more information before deciding whether or not to issue an order requested by one of the parties. [1]
Contempt of Congress [1] is the misdemeanor act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress.
Under the common law, jurors could be charged with contempt of court if they were found to have carried out independent research into the case they were trying. Proving that a juror was guilty of a contempt required proof that he/she had acted contrary to a judicial order (e.g. to refrain from carrying out research online).
Falcis III found guilty of indirect contempt of court and ordered to pay a fine of ₱5,000 for hurting the case of his clients by not first filing a marriage petition on their behalf, which, when rejected, would have created an actual controversy. [1] Concurrence: Francis Jardeleza, joined by Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa [2] Concurrence: Diosdado ...
The court granted the applicant direct access, accepting the commission's argument that it was important for the Constitutional Court to make an urgent and final determination on the issue, because an application brought in the High Court could lead to a prolonged process of appeals that might outlast the commission's own mandate. Although ...
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the removal of an unruly criminal defendant during his trial. In its decision, the court ruled that a trial judge may remove a stubbornly defiant defendant from the courtroom, following a warning from the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues.