Barnett v. Barnett
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
First, we must define in greater detail the issue presented here — or, more precisely, we must state what is not the specific issue presented. The question is not whether the automatic stay provision of Section 362, Title 11, U.S. Code, would thwart a state court’s inherent or *49statutory contempt power, where the exercise of such power is utilized to uphold the dignity of the court. Where the state court is exercising its contempt powers in order to so maintain the dignity of the court and its process, rather than being a step to collect on a judgment, the cases have rather uniformly held that…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- National League of Cities v. UserySupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Maryland v. WirtzSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Fry v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brock v. Barlow (In Re Brock)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1986
- Brothers v. TremaineUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1995
- Dexter v. Grove (In Re Dexter)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 1990
- Stanton v. Holler, 07 Be 29 (11-25-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- In Re Dissolution of Marriage of CoplinOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.