Difference between revisions of "Civil contempt"
(Judges may prefer civil contempt because it enables them to avoid a trial by jury for the subject of the order, with the risk that a jury may hold against the judge's order.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Civil contempt | + | Civil contempt has the purpose of coercing compliance with an order by the court, or to compensate a party in whose favor the breached order was issued. Civil contempt is typically associated with a civil court proceeding, as opposed to a criminal one. Generally, the civil contempt disappears if and when the individual (or corporation) complies with the judge's order. |
| + | |||
| + | Judges may prefer civil contempt because it enables them to avoid a trial by jury for the subject of the order, with the risk that a jury may hold against the judge's order. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As held by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]: | ||
{{cquote|civil sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.}} | {{cquote|civil sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.}} | ||
''[[Int'l Union v. Bagwell]]'', 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994). | ''[[Int'l Union v. Bagwell]]'', 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994). | ||
Revision as of 04:34, September 5, 2015
Civil contempt has the purpose of coercing compliance with an order by the court, or to compensate a party in whose favor the breached order was issued. Civil contempt is typically associated with a civil court proceeding, as opposed to a criminal one. Generally, the civil contempt disappears if and when the individual (or corporation) complies with the judge's order.
Judges may prefer civil contempt because it enables them to avoid a trial by jury for the subject of the order, with the risk that a jury may hold against the judge's order.
As held by the U.S. Supreme Court:
| “ | civil sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. | ” |
Int'l Union v. Bagwell, 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994).
In September 2015, Kim Davis was held in civil contempt by a federal district court in Kentucky for declining to authorize homosexual marriage licenses.