Legal Opinion

In re Noonan

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 6, 1892PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus.

1Per curiam

It appears from the record in this case that a direct contempt of court was made by the petitioner in the presence of the court. It was said in The State v. Henthorn, 46 Kas. 613, that—

“ When the contempt sought to be punished is committed in-facie curice, the punishment is summary, and generally immediately following its commission. In such case no preliminary process or evidence is necessary, except what is gathered by the sense of seeing and hearing. The court takes judicial notice of the offense, and punishes without a hearing of any kind, except in some cases to give the guilty parties…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. HenthornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hardin v. SilvariSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API