In Re Browning

Court of Appeals of Kansas

In Re Browning

573 P.2d 1095, 1 Kan. App. 2d 652, 1977 Kan. App. LEXIS 202

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedNovember 4, 1977

Docket49,169

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 573 P.2d 1095 (In Re Browning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Browning, 573 P.2d 1095, 1 Kan. App. 2d 652, 1977 Kan. App. LEXIS 202 (kanctapp 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Foth, J.:

This is an appeal from an order adjudging the appellant, Virginia Nichols, guilty of indirect civil contempt of court. The contempt charge grew out of appellant’s failure to comply with an order, in a child custody-habeas corpus action, requiring her to deliver custody of her three children to their father.

On January 5, 1977, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced her to the Reno county jail until she purged herself. However, it also stayed the sentence imposed to permit her to purge herself by delivering the children at a specified time and place the following day. At oral argument counsel advised this court that the children were so delivered, and are now with their father.

Appellant was not committed for contempt, and it is apparent she never can be. The issues she presents in her appeal are serious, but they are also academic. Her position is virtually identical to that of F. G. Manzanares in Guerrero v. Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 197 Kan. 18, 415 P.2d 257. Mr. Manzanares, an attorney, was found guilty of indirect civil contempt for failing to pay over disputed money in his hands. He secured his release by placing the money in a joint control account with the clerk of the Supreme Court. The Court denied his attempted appeal, saying (p. 22):

*653 “He thereby purged himself of any possible contempt. There is nothing left upon which this court’s judgment might act. This court in the case of Carr v. Diamond, 192 Kan. 377, 388 P.2d 591, said,

“ ‘Appellate courts do not entertain appeals for such purpose. Reviewing courts do not decide questions which no longer exist merely to make a precedent.’ (p. 380.)”

See also, State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108, 37 Pac. 992.

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Foth, J.:

This is an appeal from an order adjudging the appellant, Virginia Nichols, guilty of indirect civil contempt of court. The contempt charge grew out of appellant’s failure to comply with an order, in a child custody-habeas corpus action, requiring her to deliver custody of her three children to their father.

On January 5, 1977, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced her to the Reno county jail until she purged herself. However, it also stayed the sentence imposed to permit her to purge herself by delivering the children at a specified time and place the following day. At oral argument counsel advised this court that the children were so delivered, and are now with their father.

Appellant was not committed for contempt, and it is apparent she never can be. The issues she presents in her appeal are serious, but they are also academic. Her position is virtually identical to that of F. G. Manzanares in Guerrero v. Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 197 Kan. 18, 415 P.2d 257. Mr. Manzanares, an attorney, was found guilty of indirect civil contempt for failing to pay over disputed money in his hands. He secured his release by placing the money in a joint control account with the clerk of the Supreme Court. The Court denied his attempted appeal, saying (p. 22):

*653 “He thereby purged himself of any possible contempt. There is nothing left upon which this court’s judgment might act. This court in the case of Carr v. Diamond, 192 Kan. 377, 388 P.2d 591, said,

“ ‘Appellate courts do not entertain appeals for such purpose. Reviewing courts do not decide questions which no longer exist merely to make a precedent.’ (p. 380.)”

See also, State v. Conkling, 54 Kan. 108, 37 Pac. 992.

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 P.2d 1095, 1 Kan. App. 2d 652, 1977 Kan. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-browning-kanctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack