Kartman v. Cook

Nebraska Supreme Court

Kartman v. Cook

201 N.W.2d 705, 189 Neb. 159, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 684

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 20, 1972

Docket38628

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 201 N.W.2d 705 (Kartman v. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kartman v. Cook, 201 N.W.2d 705, 189 Neb. 159, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 684 (Neb. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Newton, J.

Pursuant to proceedings had in the district court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, an order was entered awarding the custody of the minor children of appellant and appellee to appellee and directing appellant to surrender the children to appellee. The children were not surrendered, but on the contrary, appellant has removed and concealed the children while seeking to appeal the custody decision. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal.

The principle is well established that an appellate court may dismiss an appeal for contumacious violation of an order of the court. One who flouts the order of the court is not in a position to seek judicial assistance. See, Pike v. Pike, 24 Wash. 2d 735, 167 P. 2d 401, 163 A. L. R. 1314; Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N. E. 2d 773; Burns v. Burns, 35 Ill. App. 2d 34, 181 N. E. 2d 605; Commonwealth ex rel. Beemer v. Beemer, 200 Pa. Super. 103, 188 A. 2d 475; Rude v. Rude, 153 Cal. App. 2d 243, 314 P. 2d 226; Strange v. Strange (Tex. Civ. App.), 464 S. W. 2d 216; Strange v. Strange (Tex.), 464 S. W. 2d 364.

On failure of the appellant to comply with the order of the trial coürt and make a proper showing of such compliance in this court within 30 days, this appeal shall stand dismissed.

Motion to dismiss conditionally sustained.

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

Newton, J.

Pursuant to proceedings had in the district court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, an order was entered awarding the custody of the minor children of appellant and appellee to appellee and directing appellant to surrender the children to appellee. The children were not surrendered, but on the contrary, appellant has removed and concealed the children while seeking to appeal the custody decision. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal.

The principle is well established that an appellate court may dismiss an appeal for contumacious violation of an order of the court. One who flouts the order of the court is not in a position to seek judicial assistance. See, Pike v. Pike, 24 Wash. 2d 735, 167 P. 2d 401, 163 A. L. R. 1314; Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N. E. 2d 773; Burns v. Burns, 35 Ill. App. 2d 34, 181 N. E. 2d 605; Commonwealth ex rel. Beemer v. Beemer, 200 Pa. Super. 103, 188 A. 2d 475; Rude v. Rude, 153 Cal. App. 2d 243, 314 P. 2d 226; Strange v. Strange (Tex. Civ. App.), 464 S. W. 2d 216; Strange v. Strange (Tex.), 464 S. W. 2d 364.

On failure of the appellant to comply with the order of the trial coürt and make a proper showing of such compliance in this court within 30 days, this appeal shall stand dismissed.

Motion to dismiss conditionally sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 N.W.2d 705, 189 Neb. 159, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kartman-v-cook-neb-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack