Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Feiock

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1989No. G003512Published

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

  1. People v. RoderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  2. In Re McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Galland v. GallandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Warner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Ex parte ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

7 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