In Re Feiock
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
SONENSHINE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s decision the proceedings here were unmistakably criminal in nature. I disagree, however, with the majority’s holding the trial court correctly denied the motion for nonsuit. As we said in our original opinion (In re Feiock (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 649 [225 Cal.Rptr. 748]), Code of Civil Procedure section 1209.5 unconstitutionally lessens the moving party’s burden of proof.
The majority contends our original analysis was incorrect because “ability to pay” is an affirmative defense to this type of contempt, and not an element of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- People v. RoderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- In Re McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Galland v. GallandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Warner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ex parte ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.