State ex rel. Imboden v. Romines
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SATZ, Judge.
Relator, Jeffrey Imboden, (Imboden) seeks our writ to prohibit the respondent judge from “enforcing sentences for contempt of court.” The specific relief Imbo-den actually seeks is for us to order respondent to vacate the sentences for contempt. This relief is more appropriately obtained by mandamus than prohibition. The procedural distinction between mandamus and prohibition, however, “is at best blurred, at worst nonexistent, and the subject matter to which the two writs apply overlap_” St. Louis Little Rock Hospital, Inc. v. Gaertner, 682 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Mo.App.1984). Thus,…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Eugene Jerome Joseph Klein v. David Harris, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Robert Abrams, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- James H. Ellis, Jr. v. United States of America, Alfred M. Watkins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Martin v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. GarrettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
- State v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
- City of Springfield v. WeatherwaxMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992