Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ong Hing v. Thurston, 416 P.2d 416.

54 citing documents.

COMMANS v. DUNBAR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
COMMANS v. DUNBAR Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Kelly v. Kelly 503 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kelly v. Kelly 503 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Smith v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanchez v. Jaime Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Generally, “an indirect contempt requires that the alleged contemnor be given advance notice of the charge, an opportunity to be heard, and present testimony in his own behalf.”
state/michaelson v. Michaelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
state/michaelson v. Michaelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Law P. 89(a), (e) (noting the superior court may “hold the disobedient party in contempt” for failing “to perform any specific act”); (“[C]ivil contempt is the disobeyance of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party to the litigation.”).
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Cavness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
The party is entitled to his day in court.”
Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lillqvist v. Hon. fish/brigham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“criminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice [and] civil contempt is the disobeyance of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party” ( (
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Volk v. Brame 333 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
[or] choose among competing or conflicting inferences”); , (court errs by relying solely on “the testimony of others and documentary evidence in the case file to ascertain if an act of contempt ha[s] occurred,” because “whenever there is doubt as to the character of the alleged contempt, ...
Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Caskey v. Battani Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Due process requires “advance notice of the charge, an opportunity to be heard, and [to] present testimony in his own behalf.”
BMO Harris Bank National Ass'n v. Bluff 277 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
BMO Harris Bank National Ass'n v. Bluff 277 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12-864 (West 2012).
Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lund v. Donahoe 261 P.3d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 13 , (requiring that sanctions for disclosure violation “be preceded by due process”); -99 , -23 (1966) (requiring due process protections in cases of indirect contempt).
Stoddard v. Donahoe 228 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Stoddard v. Donahoe 228 P.3d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hays v. Gama 67 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2003
Hays v. Gama 67 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2003
We begin from the premise that contempt sanctions should generally be limited to “the least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” (quoting Harris v. United States, 382 U.S. 162, 165 (1965)).
Hirschfeld v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 908 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hirschfeld v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA 908 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Mojarro 816 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Mojarro 816 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
(distinction between criminal and civil contempt addressed; criminal contempt obstructs the administration of justice).
Vanguard Engineering v. Superior Court 803 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Vanguard Engineering v. Superior Court 803 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Korman v. Strick 652 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1982
Korman v. Strick 652 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1982
Returning to the merits of the case, , : “Contempt has been broken down into four classifications: criminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at the court itself which obstructs justice, * * * civil contempt is the diso-beyance of a court order directing an act for the benefit or advantage of the opposing party
Pace v. Pace 626 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Pace v. Pace 626 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
§ 12-864, , In re Wright, supra, even though it may also be criminal conduct.
Riley v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 605 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Riley v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 605 P.2d 900 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
State v. Verdugo 602 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1979
Rule 33.1 provides that: “Any person who wilfully disobeys a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court by doing or not doing an act or thing forbidden or required, or who engages in any other wilfully contumacious conduct which obstructs the administration of justice, or which lessens the dignity and authority of the court, may be held in contempt of court.” , this court distinguished criminal and civil contempt: “[CJriminal contempt is the commission of a disrespectful act directed at
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Van Baalen v. Superior Court 508 P.2d 771 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cohen, 15 Ariz.App.
State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
State v. Moore 495 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1972
*222 , in which this court stated, in upholding a finding of the Superior Court that Mr. Horton Weiss was in contempt for misconduct : “ , we defined contempt as ‘[a]ny act which is calculated to hinder, obstruct or embarrass a court in the administration of justice, or which lessens the dignity or authority of a court.
State v. Cohen 489 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Cohen 489 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Weiss v. Superior Court of Pima County 480 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1971
Weiss v. Superior Court of Pima County 480 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1971
* * * ” , we defined contempt as “[a]ny act which is calculated to hinder, obstruct or embarrass a court in the administration of justice, or which lessens the dignity or authority of a court.