Albert, In re
| Decision Date | 19 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7,7 |
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 20,383 Mich. 722 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Contempt of Theodore G. ALBERT, in the cases of. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford PITTS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest DOGANS, Defendant-Appellant. Rosina FITTANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Irving SCHULTZ, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Theodore G. Albert, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Stewart H. Freeman, Asst. Atty. Gen., on behalf of the Court of Appeals.
Before the Entire Bench except BLACK, J.
The respondent was adjudged guilty of contempt by the court of appeals for his failure on three occasions to take timely action when so ordered by that court.
On appeal respondent questions the jurisdiction of the court to initiate contempt proceedings, the procedure for establishing the contempt and the validity of the orders upon which the contempt is based.
The Michigan Constitution (1963), art. 6, § 10 provides that 'The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be provided by law.' 1 The jurisdiction of that court to control the conduct of those attorneys before it was explicitly legislated into C.L.S.1961, § 600.1701: * * *
* * * courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in the following cases:
(3) all attorneys, counselors, * * * for any wilfull neglect or violation of duty, for disobedience * * * of any lawful order of the court. * * * M.C.L.A. § 600.1701 (Stat.Ann.1962, Rev. § 27A.1701).
C.L.S.1961, § 600.1711 provides in part: * * *
(2) When any contempt is committed, other than in the view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit Or other method and opportunity has been given to defend. (Emphasis supplied). M.C.L.A. § 600.1711 (Stat.Ann.1962, Rev. § 27A.1711).
The court of appeals is a court of record 2 and if the order requiring affirmative action by the attorney is a valid order in a particular case, the attorney's neglect or refusal to obey it is contempt of that court. The statute grants the court of appeals jurisdiction to make that determination and punish such actions by appropriate procedure.
In each instance, the court of appeals' orders appear reasonable and valid and the respondent was accorded every opportunity to obey them or explain his failure to do so.
We are satisfied that his conduct under all the circumstances was properly held to be contemptuous.
Respondent's assertion that a contempt procedure must include a show cause order based on an affidavit supporting the charged facts is not correct. A court's judicial notice of its own records is a wholly satisfactory 'other method' of establishing the failure or the fact of filing in a particular period--the gravamen of the charge here.
Equally untenable is the respondent's assertion that the court could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thurston, In re
...the alleged contemnor on notice that her conduct was contemptuous because committed wilfully. In re Henry, supra; In re Albert, 383 Mich. 722, 724-725, 179 N.W.2d 20 (1970) (holding both that the Court of Appeals may proceed other than by affidavit to institute contempt proceedings by means......
-
Kystad v. Univ. of S. Carolina (In re Geraldine M. Hardy Trust)
...attempted appeal in Docket No. 324930.[1] See Hawkeye Casualty Co v Frisbee, 316 Mich. 540, 549; 25 NW2 521 (1947); In re Albert, 383 Mich. 722, 724; 179 N.W.2d 20 (1970). We have also consulted the respondent educational institutions' websites to fill in other gaps. See Johnson v Dep't of ......
-
Contempt of Calcutt, In re
...cause order was properly issued on this Court's own motion, supported by judicial notice of this Court's records. In re Albert, 383 Mich. 722, 724, 179 N.W.2d 20 (1970); see M.C.L. Sec. 600.1711(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.1711(2). Regardless, there must be a sufficient foundation of competent evid......
-
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Marquette v. Albert, Docket No. 22244
...Gogebic County Hospital, 341 Mich. 344, 67 N.W.2d 244 (1954); People v. Albert, 358 Mich. 647, 101 N.W.2d 378 (1960); In re Albert, 383 Mich. 722, 179 N.W.2d 20 (1970); State Bar Grievance Administrator v. Albert, 389 Mich. 153, 206 N.W.2d 729 (1973), and 390 Mich. 234, 212 N.W.2d 17 (1973)......