In re Williams, Misc. No. 49-69
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D. C., for Marcy M. Coates |
| Citation | 306 F. Supp. 617 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Alvester WILLIAMS, Jr. In the Matter of Marcy M. COATES. |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 49-69,54-69. |
306 F. Supp. 617
In the Matter of Alvester WILLIAMS, Jr.
In the Matter of Marcy M. COATES.
Misc. Nos. 49-69, 54-69.
United States District Court District of Columbia.
June 10, 1969.
William Garber, Washington, D. C., for Alvester Williams.
Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D. C., for Marcy M. Coates.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GESELL, District Judge.
On separate applications of Howard University and George Washington University, the United States District Court issued Temporary Restraining Orders on May 6, 1969, and May 19, 1969, respectively, enjoining acts that threatened the regular activities of these educational institutions. When the Court was later advised that these Orders had not been fully obeyed, United States Marshals were instructed to make appropriate arrests. Among those arrested and ordered to show cause why they should not be held in criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 402 were two juveniles, one a student at Howard and the other a student at George Washington. By separate motions they challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, asserting that in the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles rests in the Juvenile Court by statute. The motions were heard together. A matter of first impression is presented.
The Temporary Restraining Orders were broadly framed to deal with conditions of unrest on the campuses. Each University invoked the Court's aid so that those desiring an education could receive it without molestation from others who were ignoring orders of duly constituted University authorities. The Orders were issued to keep University facilities open and to free non-participating students and the faculty from improper interference. The Orders applied to students and non-students whether adults or juveniles without exception.
The suggestion now made that another court is the proper court to discipline any persons charged with violating this Court's orders is unacceptable. The inherent power of a court, particularly a court of equity such as this, to punish for contempt of its lawful processes cannot be questioned. This power is essential to the proper conduct of the judicial function and without it a court would be unable to preserve decorum or assert its authority by order or decree. As was stated In Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 at 594-595, 15 S.Ct. 900 at 910, 39 L.Ed. 1092 (1895):
* * * the power of a court to make an order carries with it the equal power to punish for a disobedience of
that order, and the inquiry as to the question of disobedience has been, from time immemorial, the special function of the court. And this is no technical rule. In order that a court may compel obedience to its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Farah, No. 3:12–cr–00196.
...different factual finding than is required under § 401(1), a law with an entirely separate purpose from § 1591, compare In re Williams, 306 F.Supp. 617, 619 (D.D.C.1969) (noting that § 401 delimits federal courts' longstanding equitable contempt powers) and In re McConnell, 370 U.S. at 234,......
-
United States v. Hall, No. 72-1622.
...read to restrict the inherent power of a court to protect its ability to render a binding judgment. See In re Williams, 1969, D.C.D.C., 306 F. Supp. 617. We hold that Hall's relationship to the Mims case fell within that contemplated by Rule 65(d). By deciding Mims and retaining jurisdictio......
-
US v. Masselli, No. 81 Crim. 0325 (LFM).
...Ed. Ass'n v. Richland Parish School Bd., 421 F.Supp. 973, 975 (W.D.La.1976), aff'd, 585 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1978); In re Williams, 306 F. Supp. 617, 618-19 (D.D.C.1969). The power of the court to punish a party's contemptuous acts by fine or imprisonment is also codified at 18 U.S.C. § 401. A......
-
Wilson v. Com., No. 2185-95-3
...Application of Balucan, 44 Haw. 271, 353 P.2d 631, 637 (1960) (same). At least one federal court has held the same. In re Williams, 306 F.Supp. 617 (D.D.C.1969). See generally, 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt § 54 (1990 & Supp.1996); V. Woerner, Annotation, Court's Power to Punish for Contempt a ......
-
United States v. Farah, No. 3:12–cr–00196.
...different factual finding than is required under § 401(1), a law with an entirely separate purpose from § 1591, compare In re Williams, 306 F.Supp. 617, 619 (D.D.C.1969) (noting that § 401 delimits federal courts' longstanding equitable contempt powers) and In re McConnell, 370 U.S. at 234,......
-
United States v. Hall, No. 72-1622.
...read to restrict the inherent power of a court to protect its ability to render a binding judgment. See In re Williams, 1969, D.C.D.C., 306 F. Supp. 617. We hold that Hall's relationship to the Mims case fell within that contemplated by Rule 65(d). By deciding Mims and retaining jurisdictio......
-
US v. Masselli, No. 81 Crim. 0325 (LFM).
...Ed. Ass'n v. Richland Parish School Bd., 421 F.Supp. 973, 975 (W.D.La.1976), aff'd, 585 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.1978); In re Williams, 306 F. Supp. 617, 618-19 (D.D.C.1969). The power of the court to punish a party's contemptuous acts by fine or imprisonment is also codified at 18 U.S.C. § 401. A......
-
Wilson v. Com., No. 2185-95-3
...Application of Balucan, 44 Haw. 271, 353 P.2d 631, 637 (1960) (same). At least one federal court has held the same. In re Williams, 306 F.Supp. 617 (D.D.C.1969). See generally, 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt § 54 (1990 & Supp.1996); V. Woerner, Annotation, Court's Power to Punish for Contempt a Chil......