Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Moroun

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 2012No. Docket No. 308053Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFort Hood, J.

I join in and concur with the lead opinion in all respects except concerning the imprisonment sanction.1 Because I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with regard to the propriety of the penalty for civil contempt, I would affirm the lower court’s decision in its entirety.

Individuals who conspire with others to violate court orders are equally liable and subject to contempt proceedings. ARA Chuckwagon of Detroit, Inc v Lobert, 69 Mich App 151, 159; 244 NW2d 393 (1976). When an order is entered by the court, it must be obeyed until it is judicially vacated. Id. at 161.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. International Union, United Mine Workers v. BagwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. United States v. RylanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Spallone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

18 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