Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

In the Matter of D. M. VANCE

         JUDGES: In Bank. Sharpstein, J. McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          SHARPSTEIN, Judge

          [26 P. 102] This appeal is from a judgment in a case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that "the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive." In Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O'Neil , 47 Cal. 109. Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman , 70 Cal. 210.

         We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly , 65 Cal. 30.

         Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

In re Vance
(Mar 7, 1891)