Tastee Inn, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co.
Decision Date | 31 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 34399,34399 |
Citation | 92 N.W.2d 664,167 Neb. 264 |
Parties | TASTEE INN, INC., a Corporation, Appellant and Plaintiff in Error, v. BEATRICE FOODS CO., Inc., a Corporation, Appellee and Defendant In Error, Harold L. Jorgenson, Contemner-Appellant and Plaintiff In Error. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus of the Court.
1. It is mandatory that the record of conviction for direct contempt must contain a statement of the facts upon which the court relied in adjudging the contemner guilty.
2. The reason of the foregoing requirement is to enable a court reviewing the record of conviction for direct contempt to determine from the record of the conviction thus made if a contempt was committed and if the court which made the adjudication had authority to impose punishment therefor.
3. A statement of conclusions of the court in the record of such a proceeding is unimportant and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
4. A contempt proceeding is in its nature criminal and no presumption or intendment is indulged to sustain a conviction.
5. In a proceeding for direct contempt, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.
William L. Walker, Earl Ludlam, Lincoln, for appellant.
Cline, Williams, Wright & Johnson, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, WENKE and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
This case concerns the conviction of Harold L. Jorgenson and Tastee Inn, Inc., plaintiffs in error, for a direct contempt of the district court for Lancaster County said to have been committed by Harold L. Jorgenson while he was being examined as a witness in the trial of a civil case in which Tastee Inn, Inc., was plaintiff and Beatrice Foods Co., Inc., was defendant, at a session of the court in the presence and hearing of the presiding judge. Plaintiffs in error contest the legality of the adjudication against them.
This case must be determined by the record made of the proceedings for contempt against them as evidenced by the journal of the court. It is, omitting formal parts, as follows:
The record is challenged as insufficient to justify the action taken by the court as recited therein. Specifically it is said that the judgment is not supported by sufficient or any evidence and that the findings do not sustain the judgment.
In Crites v. State, 74 Neb. 687, 105 N.W. 469, 470, the record of the court exhibited the following findings: The court adjudged Albert W. Crites guilty of direct contempt of court, imposed a fine upon him, and ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid. This court in deciding that case said:
In Ogden v. State, 3 Neb. Unof. 886, 93 N.W. 203, the record of the conviction of Charles Ogden of a direct contempt of court was reviewed and the judgment was reversed. The findings from which the conviction resulted were as follows: The judgment of conviction and the imposition of a fine were shown by the record. This court said: This court noticed the specification that the attorney refused to obey the order of the district court to take his place at the counsel table and be seated and made this observation:
Wilcox v. State, 46 Neb. 402, 64 N.W. 1072, involved the refusal of Sherman Wilcox to be sworn and his refusal to testify in a proceeding for his examination in aid of execution. Jeremiah C. Wilcox appeared in court and was sworn but refused to give any testimony in the proceeding. The opinion states: * * *.' He was committed to the county jail until he signified his willingness to submit to an examination. The opinion then states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Harker
...the conclusion of the court will not sustain a sentence for imprisonment for contempt. Gonzalez is cited in Tastee Inn, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 167 Neb. 264, 92 N.W.2d 664 (1958). In the latter case, the Supreme Court reviewed several cases involving direct contempt, recognized that no ......
-
Tyler v. Heywood
...sufficiency of the district court's order, citing Gonzalez v. State, 119 Neb. 13, 226 N.W. 801 (1929), and Tastee Inn, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 167 Neb. 264, 92 N.W.2d 664 (1958). However, unlike the present case, the records in Gonzalez, supra, and Tastee Inn, Inc., supra, did not adequ......
-
Weiss v. Superior Court of Pima County
...Wyo., 440 P.2d 516 (1968); Chula v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 199, 18 Cal.Rptr. 507, 368 P.2d 107 (1962); Tastee Inn, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Company, 167 Neb. 264, 92 N.W.2d 664 (1958); Ex parte Lagunilla, 30 Wash.2d 777, 193 P.2d 875 (1948); Ex parte Gambrell, 160 Kan. 620, 164 P.2d 122 (1......
-
Golden v. Superior Court of Cochise County
...order. Raiden v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County, 34 Cal.2d 83, 206 P.2d 1081, 1082 (1949); and Tastee Inn, Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 167 Neb. 264, 92 N.W.2d 664, 669 (1958). California has clearly ruled that a judgment of contempt must be sufficient in itself and cannot be supporte......