Scott v. Hunt Oil Company

Decision Date24 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 25415.,25415.
Citation398 F.2d 810
PartiesMarie Beaucum SCOTT, Appellant, v. HUNT OIL COMPANY et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Marie Baucum Scott, Bossier City, La., pro se.

Robert U. Goodman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, Shreveport, La., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., of counsel, for Supreme Court of Louisiana, Second Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana and P. E. Brown, Judge, Second Judicial District Court of Louisiana.

J. R. Goff, Arcadia, La., Goff & Caskey, Arcadia, La., of counsel, for Hunt Oil Co., Placid Oil Co., Caroline Hunt Sands and Haroldson L. Hunt, Jr. Trust Estate. Robert Roberts, III, Shreveport, La., Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin & Roberts, Shreveport, La., of counsel, for General American Oil Co. of Texas.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, DYER, Circuit Judge and GARZA, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Mrs. Marie Baucum Scott, now under a sentence of civil contempt for violating an order of the District Court, appeals pro se contending that the Court below erred in ordering her to dismiss with prejudice a suit now pending in the State Courts of Louisiana as a condition for purging herself of contempt. We affirm.

In December of 1965 the District Court entered an order enjoining and prohibiting Appellant from instituting any further legal proceedings arising from Appellants' alleged ownership of the mineral interest in a tract of land in Louisiana. No appeal was taken from this order1 and the time for appeal has long since passed. On May 22, 1967, Appellant filed a petition in a State Court of Louisiana against the same parties as the Appellees in this suit. In response, Appellees moved the District Court to find that this Louisiana proceeding constituted a violation of the December, 1965, injunction. After a hearing, the District Judge found that the suit was a violation of his earlier order. Appellant was found to be in civil contempt and the Judge entered a judgment ordering Appellant either to dismiss the state court suit within 10 days or pay a fine of $5.00 a day thereafter.

In September, 1967, Appellees returned to the Federal District Court and showed that Appellant had neither dismissed the Louisiana suit nor paid the fine imposed. The District Judge found that Appellant had not complied with his earlier order and that she had no intention of doing so. He then directed her imprisonment for six months or until such time as she dismissed the suit pending in the state court. The present appeal is taken from that order.

Appellant has raised several points of error, all of which are foreclosed to further consideration because of final judgments, not appealed, entered in prior suits. There is no longer any doubt that the District Judge, to relieve Appellees of harassing and vexing litigation, had the power to enjoin Appellant from filing suits in the state courts "to protect or effectuate its judgments". 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283. See T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Williams, 5 Cir., 1960, 275 F.2d 397; Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co. v. R.F.C., 5 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 394; Jackson v. Carter Oil Co., 10 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 524, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 812, 71 S.Ct. 39, 95 L.Ed. 597; Wright, Federal Courts § 47 (1963). Thus the only remaining question is whether the sentence of conditional imprisonment against Appellant was proper in this case.

We find that it was. Courts for centuries have possessed the inherent power to enforce their lawful...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, s. 83-1280
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 17 Noviembre 1983
    ...305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 280, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939).54 See Bethell v. Peace, 441 F.2d 495 (5th Cir.1971); Scott v. Hunt Oil Co., 398 F.2d 810 (5th Cir.1968). Since res judicata and collateral estoppel may be pled in subsequent actions, a showing of harassment, bad faith, or other stro......
  • Auto Parts Mfg. Miss. Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 14 Junio 2017
    ...power to enforce their lawful decrees through the use of coercive sanctions in civil contempt proceedings." Scott v. Hunt Oil Co ., 398 F.2d 810, 811 (5th Cir. 1968). " ‘[C]oercive’ sanctions [are] designed to make a party comply with a court order." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co ., 137 S.Ct. a......
  • Southern Railway Company v. Lanham
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 4 Marzo 1969
    ...of California v. S. E. C., 1947, 330 U.S. 585, 590, 67 S.Ct. 918, 921, 91 L.Ed. 1117; McCrone v. United States, supra; Scott v. Hunt Oil Co., 5th Cir. 1968, 398 F.2d 810 July 24, 1968; 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 54.17. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is punitive, rather than remedia......
  • Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 9 Abril 1976
    ...for civil or criminal contempt; the only difference being that imprisonment for civil contempt must be conditional. Scott v. Hunt Oil Company, 398 F.2d 810 (5th Cir. 1968). Similarly, a "fine" may be appropriate for either; the only distinction being that in civil contempt it must be compen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT