In re Vance
In the Matter of D. M. VANCE
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Sharpstein (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sharpstein
Sharpstein, J.
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 Cat. 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.
McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Sanchez v. Newman No. 11321 · 1886-07-26
- Tyler v. Connolly No. 9,418 · 1884-02-05
Cited by
- Butler v. Butler Civ. No. 8359 · 1967-10-17
- Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co. Sac. No. 2232. · 1914-12-18
- Abbott v. Abbott Civ. No. 1266. · 1914-05-15
- In re the Estate of Wittmeier S. F. No. 893 · 1897-09-13
- People v. Kuhlman Crim. No. 228 · 1897-09-10
- Natoma Water & Min. Co. v. Hancock No. 14,624 · 1894-03-13
- Ex parte Clancy No. 20873 · 1891-08-22