State v. Dickson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
It is apparent from the record that there was no conduct on the part of Attorney Korb that constituted a contempt of court.
Sec. 256.03, Stats., itemizes what acts might be punished as criminal contempts. The itemization is exclu sive, and the preamble to the statute specifically provides that persons may be found guilty only for the stated acts and for no other. Sec. 256.03 (1) provides that conduct may be punished as contempt which is:
“Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during its sittings, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- John F. Jelke Co. v. BeckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Ramer v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Young v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. WashingtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Blake v. RupeWyoming Supreme Court · 1982
- Leroux v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Hamilton v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. DwyerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.