CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moody v. Hutchison

Plaintiff Wanda Moody, a Knox County Commissioner, requested public records from Defendant Sheriff Timothy Hutchison under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Defendant provided some, but not all, documents and made false representations regarding their existence and availability. Plaintiff sought criminal contempt charges against Defendant for these false statements and obstruction of justice. The Trial Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt for making at least six willfully false statements in a signed response, obstructing court processes, and imposed a $300 fine. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, notice of criminal contempt, and the appropriateness of criminal vs. civil contempt. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence, proper notice, and that criminal contempt was a suitable remedy for preserving the court's authority, and held the Defendant personally responsible for the fine.

Public Records ActCriminal ContemptFalse StatementsObstruction of JusticeKnox County SheriffGovernment TransparencyDocument ProductionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pamela R. v. James N.

This case addresses the appropriate burden of proof in Family Court contempt proceedings concerning custody order violations, specifically contrasting criminal and civil contempt. The court examined whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal contempt, as established by Rubackin v Rubackin, and clear and convincing evidence for civil contempt. The father was accused of willfully violating a sole custody order by altering his daughter's prescribed medication regimen. The court found that the mother failed to prove criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, as the father's actions were deemed justified due to his medical expertise and good faith belief regarding his daughter's well-being. Consequently, the mother's petition was dismissed.

Family CourtContempt ProceedingCustody OrderBurden of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptReasonable DoubtClear and Convincing EvidenceJudicial AuthorityParental Rights
References
12
Case No. W1999-01515-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2000

Beverly Bledsoe v. Marion Bledsoe

The defendant, Marion Isaiah Bledsoe, appealed a trial court's judgment for criminal and civil contempt for failing to pay court-ordered child support to the plaintiff, Beverly Joyce Bledsoe. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson vacated the criminal contempt finding, ruling that the father was denied his right to a jury trial as mandated by Tennessee law. Additionally, the unconditional incarceration for civil contempt was vacated, as it was deemed an improper punishment for civil rather than criminal contempt. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other aspects, including the finding that the father had the means to pay child support and exhibited disregard for his obligations. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Child SupportContempt of CourtParental ObligationsDue ProcessJury Trial RightsAppellate ReviewCivil ContemptCriminal ContemptChild Support ArrearageJudicial Discretion
References
22
Case No. E2010-00860-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. James Beeler

Attorney James Beeler was cited for criminal contempt by the Washington County Criminal Court for allegedly communicating with a co-defendant, James Thomas, who was represented by another attorney, Todd Ross, without explicit permission during a suppression hearing. The trial court based its contempt finding on "willful misbehavior" under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-102(1) and (2). Beeler appealed, arguing that his conduct did not constitute "misbehavior" given the close cooperation between the defense attorneys. The Supreme Court of Tennessee found that while Beeler's actions were intentional, the evidence was insufficient to prove "willful misbehavior" beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the extensive prior collaboration and the nuances of the attorneys' understanding. The Court held that an ethical violation does not automatically equate to criminal contempt unless it demonstrably obstructs justice or impinges on the court's integrity. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and vacated Mr. Beeler's conviction.

Criminal ContemptAttorney ConductLegal EthicsRule of Professional Conduct 4.2Willful MisbehaviorAdministration of JusticeTrial ProcedureAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney Discipline
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R.

This case is a contempt proceeding initiated against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company and its officials for violating a temporary injunction issued on August 3, 1927. The injunction aimed to prevent interference with employees' self-organization and representation under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the defendants deliberately nullified the injunction by promoting the 'Association of Clerical Employees' while actively undermining the 'Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks'. The judge issued a remedial order, requiring the disestablishment of the company-backed association, re-establishment of the Brotherhood as the employees' representative, restoration of positions and privileges for affected Brotherhood officers and members, and a referral to government law officers to consider criminal contempt charges.

Labor LawContempt of CourtInjunction ViolationRailway Labor ActEmployee RepresentationCollective BargainingUnionizationEmployer InterferenceUnfair Labor PracticesJudicial Enforcement
References
18
Case No. E2016-00628-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2017

Trevor Howell v. Kennedy Smithwick

Mother, Kennedy Smithwick, appealed the trial court's decisions regarding parenting time, criminal contempt, child support, and the child's surname. The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in finding Mother in criminal contempt for one specific incident, in setting temporary child support without proper explanation or worksheet, in failing to order Father to pay child support by wage assignment, and in changing the child's surname to Father's. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings on two other criminal contempt incidents and its permanent parenting schedule. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Child CustodyParenting TimeChild SupportCriminal ContemptSurname ChangeAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionWage AssignmentBest Interests of ChildPaternity
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,038 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational