Home/California Supreme Court/In re Foote

In re Foote

18 P. 678, 76 Cal. 543, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 930
California Supreme Court·Decided June 12, 1888·No. No. 20438·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

The Court.

Admitting that petitioner was guilty of contempt committed in the presence of the court, it appears that no proceedings were taken by the court, at the time , the contempt was committed, to punish the petitioner, nor were any steps taken to retain jurisdiction, until fifty days thereafter, when the order adjudging him guilty of contempt, and imposing a fine of three hundred dollars, was made, without notice of any kind. Under these circumstances we think the court lost jurisdiction to proceed against petitioner for contempt, and that the order and commitment are void.

Let the petitioner be discharged.

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

In re Foote, 18 P. 678, 76 Cal. 543, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 930 (Cal. 1888).

18 P. 678 (In re Foote) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Betsworth v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
26 Cal. App. 4th 586 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Ex Parte Martin
656 S.W.2d 443 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Ex Parte Pink
645 S.W.2d 262 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Rowen v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
119 Cal. App. 3d 633 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Nierenberg v. Superior Court
59 Cal. App. 3d 611 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
State v. Wollen
517 P.2d 748 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1973)
Marcus v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
35 Cal. App. 3d 598 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
People v. Fusaro
18 Cal. App. 3d 877 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Levine Contempt Case
95 A.2d 222 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)
Lamberson v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.
91 P. 100 (California Supreme Court, 1907)