Green v. Green

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Sager

    249 P.3d 91 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    17 C.J.S. Contempt, § 78. A trial court is without power or authority to hold a defendant guilty for indirect contempt based upon an accusation that was not included in an application for a contempt citation. Nuckolls v. Nuckolls, 1960 OK 224, ¶ 11, 356 P.2d 1089, 1092; Green v. Green, 1962 OK 157, ¶ 4, 373 P.2d 15. 16 (citing Townsend v. Townsend, 1935 OK 1001, 50 P.2d 147). A judgment will not be reversed due to alleged defects or omission in a petition for citation for indirect contempt if the defects or omissions are supplied by the proof without objection. Van Horn v. Van Horn, 1943 OK 302, ¶ 2, 141 P.2d 1006, 1007.

  2. League v. League

    735 P.2d 583 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    He could not be found in contempt for subsequent failure to pay child support in the absence of a new application for citation. Green v. Green, Okla., 373 P.2d 15 (1962). Thus if the new arrearage amount reflects child support payments subsequent to February 17, 1977, it is error.

  3. In re Marriage of Vanet

    544 S.W.2d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 75 times

    By way of explanation, they stated that the respective trial courts had exceeded their "jurisdiction", "power", and "authority". See Ex parte Townsend, 177 Okl. 286, 59 P.2d 279 (1936) and Green v. Green, 373 P.2d 15 (Okl. 1962). The proponent contends that the power to place a once errant husband on probation, even though the contempt proceeding is civil in nature, is "critically important" to "assist" and "enable" the state to compel future compliance with maintenance and child support payments spelled out in a dissolution of marriage decree.