Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Bell

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 18, 1995No. 2-94-0517Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Bowman

Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the written order in the present case is insufficient to support a finding of contempt, I disagree with its conclusion that the report of proceedings shows contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct criminal contempt of court is " ' "conduct which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct a court in its administration of justice or derogate from its authority or dignity, thereby bringing the administration of law into disrepute.” ’ ” (People v. Simac (1994), 161 Ill. 2d 297, 305, quoting People v. L.A.S. (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 539, 543,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Cooke v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Craig v. HarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. Brown v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. In Re LittleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. People v. JavarasIllinois Supreme Court · 1972

10 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