Stout v. Stout

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Stout v. Stout

336 So. 2d 1123

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 1, 1976

DocketCiv. 906

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 1123 (Stout v. Stout) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stout v. Stout, 336 So. 2d 1123 (Ala. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an attempt by the appellant to review a contempt proceeding.

The appellant has filed with this court a notice of appeal which in pertinent part reads as follows:

"Notice is hereby given that Defendant appeals to the above named court giving the Appellant a five day jail sentence for contempt."

Put another way, the appellant is seeking review of the contempt proceedings by appeal.

This court has carefully reviewed the record and we cannot determine, among other items, whether the appellant was incarcerated, is now incarcerated, or if in fact ever was incarcerated. In any event, the proper remedy for review of contempt proceedings *Page 1124 is by habeas corpus if the party is in jail, or by certiorari if the party is not, and appeal is not the proper remedy.Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 284 Ala. 524, 226 So.2d 308. See also 4A Ala.Dig. Contempt 67 and cases cited thereunder.

There are cogent reasons why the above is the law. See Grahamv. City of Sheffield, 292 Ala. 682, 299 So.2d 281. Suffice it to say that one of the reasons is to prevent the appellate courts from having to speculate as to the exact nature of what has previously transpired.

We therefore find that the contempt proceedings in this instance are not reviewable by appeal as is sought.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.

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

This is an attempt by the appellant to review a contempt proceeding.

The appellant has filed with this court a notice of appeal which in pertinent part reads as follows:

"Notice is hereby given that Defendant appeals to the above named court giving the Appellant a five day jail sentence for contempt."

Put another way, the appellant is seeking review of the contempt proceedings by appeal.

This court has carefully reviewed the record and we cannot determine, among other items, whether the appellant was incarcerated, is now incarcerated, or if in fact ever was incarcerated. In any event, the proper remedy for review of contempt proceedings *Page 1124 is by habeas corpus if the party is in jail, or by certiorari if the party is not, and appeal is not the proper remedy.Killingsworth v. Killingsworth, 284 Ala. 524, 226 So.2d 308. See also 4A Ala.Dig. Contempt 67 and cases cited thereunder.

There are cogent reasons why the above is the law. See Grahamv. City of Sheffield, 292 Ala. 682, 299 So.2d 281. Suffice it to say that one of the reasons is to prevent the appellate courts from having to speculate as to the exact nature of what has previously transpired.

We therefore find that the contempt proceedings in this instance are not reviewable by appeal as is sought.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 So. 2d 1123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stout-v-stout-alacivapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack