In Re Banks
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentPair, Associate Judge
The order directing appellant to assume and maintain overnight custody of the child involved in the proceedings below was not challenged by an appeal1 and so the majority has decided, nevertheless, that the court was without authority to enter the order. Reasoning from this, the majority concludes that appellant’s in-court defiance of the order was not punishable by contempt. I disagree and would affirm the contempt order. A more detailed review of the factual background of the controversy than that set forth in the majority opinion seems necessary to put the issue in proper perspective.
Taken…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Murphy v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Enoch Creek, Jr. v. William J. StoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.