Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

S.C. v. J.R.W

667 So. 2d 84 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
S.C. v. J.R.W

4 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte J.R.W

    667 So. 2d 88 (Ala. 1995)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that "while awarding an attorney fee in a criminal contempt proceeding is improper, it does not void the judgment"

    Upon remand, the Court of Civil Appeals again reversed the judgment of contempt. S.C. v. J.R.W., 667 So.2d 84 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994). The Court of Civil Appeals found that this Court's statement that "[t]he contentions of the parties do not concern the correctness of any factual finding on which the circuit court based its judgment of contempt; rather, the issues raised here are legal," necessitated, on remand, that the court address whether there was sufficient evidence presented to the circuit court to establish that S.C. was in contempt.

  2. Sealy v. D'Amico

    789 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    In Sealy v. D'Amico, 789 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.Civ.App.2000), this court concluded that, because the circuit court had evidence before it from which it reasonably could have concluded that Sealy had, or could obtain, money to purge himself of the contempt, the circuit court had not abused its discretion in finding Sealy in contempt or in ordering his incarceration.

    Further, case law indicates that the coercive nature of a judgment of civil contempt under the circumstances of this case does not envision the imposition of a sanction as a punishment. See S.C. v. J.R.W., 667 So.2d 84 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); Hill v. Hill, 637 So.2d 1368 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); andMosley v. Horton, 574 So.2d 804 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). Accordingly, although we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding Sealy to be in civil contempt and in ordering his incarceration, we must reverse the trial court's imposition of the $2,500 sanction and remand the cause for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.

  3. Kelton v. Kelton

    709 So. 2d 1236 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    "[A] party can be punished for criminal contempt of court only upon an adjudication based upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." S.C. v. J.R.W., 667 So.2d 84, 86 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte J.R.W., 667 So.2d 88 (Ala. 1995). Our supreme court has recognized that criminal contempt proceedings are punitive in nature and that their purpose is to vindicate the dignity of the court.

  4. T.P.W.C. v. J.R.W

    674 So. 2d 1291 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Since the entry of the divorce judgment, the parties have engaged in numerous legal proceedings and appeals concerning their child. See S.C. v. J.R.W., 667 So.2d 72 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), rev'd, 667 So.2d 74 (Ala. 1994), on remand, 667 So.2d 84 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994); T.P.W.C. v. J.R.W., 622 So.2d 931 (Ala.Civ.App. 1993), cert. denied, May 21, 1993; Ex parte J.R.W., 630 So.2d 447 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), cert. denied, March 17, 1992; and Ex parte T.P.W.C., 601 So.2d 218 (Ala. 1992). The parties are now before this court on the issues of whether the trial court erred in calculating the father's child support arrearage and whether the trial court's disbursement of the proceeds from a forfeited appearance bond was improper.