Austin v. Denver

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Shell

    148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006)   Cited 64 times
    Holding in the absence of preemption by the federal courts, the state court has the power to sanction an individual for the unauthorized practice of law in a federal action

    See id. Where an individual previously has been enjoined by the court against practicing law without a license, violations of that injunction are punishable in contempt proceedings conducted pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107.Cf. Austin v. City County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 184, 397 P.2d 743, 745 (1964) ("The power to punish for contempt, as a punitive measure or to coerce obedience, is an inherent and indispensable power of the courts."). Shell argues in passing that the proceedings below were constitutionally insufficient.

  2. People v. Razatos

    699 P.2d 970 (Colo. 1985)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that the record did not support remedial contempt order because it did not establish defendant had the ability to pay the ordered restitution at the time of the hearing

    P.R. v. District Court, 637 P.2d 346, 350 (Colo. 1981); Wright v. District Court, 192 Colo. 553, 555, 561 P.2d 15, 16-17 (1977); Ealy v. District Court, 189 Colo. 308, 310, 539 P.2d 1244, 1245-46 (1975); Austin v. City County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 184-85, 397 P.2d 743, 746 (1964). A remedial contempt order must be supported by findings of fact establishing that the court's order has not been complied with and that the alleged contemner has the present ability to comply.