Legal Opinion

In re the Interest of M.B.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 10, 2000No. Nos. 41532-8-I; 43014-9-I; 42778-4-I; 42952-3-I; 42923-0-I; 42773-3-IPublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEllington, J.

These six cases raise challenging issues of daily significance in juvenile courts across the state: What are the source and scope of a court’s contempt powers in juvenile status offense cases, and what procedure is required in such proceedings?

It is axiomatic that a court must be able to enforce its orders. It is equally clear that the requirements of due process must be honored. The juvenile contempt statutes provide that commitment to detention for determinate periods of time is a “remedial” sanction. Read literally, this contravenes the Constitution. We hold, however, that the powers…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Shillitani v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation v. Medicine Bird Black Bear White EagleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2001
  2. In Re MBCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  3. River House Development, Inc. v. Integrus ArchitectureCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  4. In Re Dependency of AKWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. In re the Dependency of A.K.Washington Supreme Court · 2007

42 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