Citation network
Mine Workers Vs. Bagwell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 29, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 821 (1993) October Term, 1993 Syllabus International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Et Al. V. BagwellSearch
-
a defendant into compliance with a court order or compensates the complainant for losses sustained. United States v. MineSearch
-
Mine Workers v. ClinchfieldSearch
-
Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
see also Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
the procedural contours of the two forms of contempt are well established, the distinguishing characteristics of civil v. criminalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
are somewhat less clear.3 In the leading early case addressing this issue in the context of imprisonment, Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
U. S. 289 (1888), and, except for serious criminal contempts in which a jury trial is required, Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
the traditional distinction between civil and criminal contempt proceedings does not pertain, cf. United States v. WilsonSearch
-
see also McCrone v. UnitedSearch
-
fixed term similarly is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he complies. Shillitani v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MineSearch
-
is not compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge. See Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SECSearch
-
erected substantial procedural protections in other areas of contempt law, such as criminal contempts, e. g., Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 194 (1968), and summary contempts, e. g., Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
Johnson v. MississippiSearch
-
of the withdrawal of any other notice questioning the ongoing effectiveness of the Krug-Lewis agreement. United States v. MineSearch
-
Young v. UnitedSearch
-
in the courtroom and the integrity of the trial process in the face of an 'actual obstruction of justice.''' Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
cf. United States v. WilsonSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
of trial, for example, due process requires that the contemnor's rights to notice and a hearing be respected. Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
see also Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
expedited procedures do not pertain. Summary adjudication of indirect contempts is prohibited, e. g., Cooke v. UnitedSearch
-
court disobedience to complex injunctions 834 often require elaborate and reliable factfinding. Cf. Green v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SECSearch
-
imposed on a union was insufficient to trigger the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. See Muniz v. HoffmanSearch
-
has deferred to a legislature's determination whether a sanction is civil or criminal, see, e. g., United States v. WardSearch
-
Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
Hicks, 485 U. S., at 631, quoting Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
a legislature, declares a particular sanction to be civil or criminal, such deference is less appropriate. Cf. Madsen v. Women'sSearch
-
and to enter broad compensatory awards for all contempts through civil proceedings. See, e. g., Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOCSearch
-
Green v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
from the procedures that the Constitution normally requires is not a denial of due process of law. See Burnham v. SuperiorSearch
-
cf. Honda Motor Co. v. ObergSearch
-
until he complied with a specific order of the court. See Gompers v. BucksSearch
-
it was the categorical rule that no decree would issue that required ongoing supervision. See, e. g., Marble Co. v. RipleySearch
-
the litigant's obligation to the court, and the court's coercive power over the litigant, ceased. See United States v. MineSearch
-
disputes and place them in continuing supervisory roles over parties and institutions. See, e. g., Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial