Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hendershot v. Handlan

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 1978No. 14110Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMiller, Justice

My dissent goes to the majority’s sanctioning of the use of an attachment for arrest in this case. I concur in the final result since the trial court ultimately placed the contempt on a correct procedural footing.

I

While the majority correctly states the rule of a non-party’s liability for contempt in the first syllabus, I do not believe that on the record in this case there was a sufficient factual showing to warrant the issuance of an arrest attachment.

The majority acknowledges the contemnor, James B. Hendershot, Sr., was not a party to the original divorce action, which was between his son…

2Cases cited55 opinions

  1. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. In Re OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Bloom v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925

50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API