Legal Opinion
Buck v. Raymor Ballroom Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided June 23, 1939No. 4600PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
McLELLAN, District Judge.
All the parties in interest agree that this is not a petition for criminal contempt, but for civil contempt, and it is unnecessary to call attention to the facts which make this clear. See Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Company, 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 874.
The question here presented by the petition for contempt and the defendants’ motion to dismiss it is not whether the defendants are punishable for criminal contempt. It is not whether under certain circumstances the facts presented might be both criminal and civil contempt. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Fox v. Capital Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Lamb v. CramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Kreplik v. Cough Patents Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Raymor Ballroom Co. v. BuckCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1940