Austin v. Denver

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Burckhalter

    389 B.R. 185 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that the plaintiff "must establish . . . that the obligation appears in a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record."

    See, e.g., Kourlis v. Port, 18 P.3d 770, 773 (Colo.Ct.App.2000) ("[C]ontempt is neither a statutory nor a common-law crime. Instead, the authority to punish contempt is an exercise of a court's inherent powers to enforce obedience to its orders.") (citing Austin v. City and County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743, 745-46 (1964)). COLO. R. Civ. P. 107(a)(1).

  2. In re Marriage of Peper

    554 P.2d 727 (Colo. App. 1976)   Cited 10 times

    [3] The procedural provisions of C.R.C.P. 107(c) are not exclusive. There is no fixed procedural formula for contempt proceedings; rather the polestar in determining the validity of contempt procedures is whether due process of law is accorded. Austin v. City County of Denver, 156 Colo. 180, 397 P.2d 743 (1964). See also Shapiro v. Shapiro, 115 Colo. 501, 175 P.2d 387 (1946).