No. 10502 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Pearce v. Dozier

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed December 21, 1965 · 181 So. 2d 432

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 24, 1975 323 So. 2d 146

The holding in the court’s own words

Therefore, we conclude that an appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt and from the sentence imposed thereon.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

In Re Succession of Horrell 993 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Smith v. Smith 796 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
City of Monroe v. Evans 385 So. 2d 912 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Grishman v. Grishman 322 So. 2d 840 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Joint Legislative Committee of the Legislature v. Strain 268 So. 2d 629 La. 1972
Duhon v. Duhon 226 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Advertiser, Division of the Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs 199 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

150 La. 1030 not in our corpus
State ex rel. Dowling v. Ray 91 So. 443
City of Gretna v. Rossner 154 La. 117
State ex rel. Milling v. Louisiana Public Service Commission 154 La. 752
Hattier v. Martinez 197 La. 121
White v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company 94 So. 2d 95
Moity v. Mahfouz 137 So. 2d 513

Opinion text

AYRES, Judge. Upon a finding that respondent had violated an injunction prohibiting his interference with the employees of the Division of Weights and Measures of the Department of Agriculture and Immigration of the State of Louisiana in making an inspection of merchandise offered for sale in his grocery and the testing of scales used in connection with the weighing of such merchandise, respondent was adjudged in contempt of the authority of the court and was, accordingly, sentenced to be incarcerated in the parish jail for a period of six months. Notwithstanding this sentence was sus *433 pended during good behavior, respondent nevertheless applied for and was granted orders of appeal to this court. Relator contends, in a motion to dismiss, that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a sentence for contempt of court. This contention is well-founded. The rule well established in the jurisprudence of this State is that a- conviction and sentence of contempt are not appealable in the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision for such review. State ex rel. Farmer v. Judge Parish Court, 31 La.Ann. 116 (1879); State ex rel. Dowling v. Ray, 150 La. 1030 , 91 So. 443 (1922); City of Gretna v. Rossner, 154 La. 117, 121 , 97 So. 335, 336 (1923); State ex rel. Milling v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 154 La. 752 , 98 So. 175, 179 (1923); Hattier v. Martinez, 197 La. 121 , 1 So.2d 51 (1941); White v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company, 94 So.2d 95 , La.App., 1st Cir. 1957; Moity v. Mahfouz, 137 So.2d 513 , La.App., 3d Cir. 1961 (certiorari denied). Our attention has been directed to no such constitutional or statutory provision, and we know of none. Therefore, we conclude that an appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt and from the sentence imposed thereon. We were, however, reminded that, under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3612, “An appeal may be taken as a matter of right from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary or final injunction, * * (Emphasis supplied.) This authority is without application. The judgment directing the issuance of the injunction has long since become final. No issue relating to or attacking the injunction is presented on this appeal — nor could it be — only concerned is the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed* for a violation of the injunction. A review of the validity of contempt proceedings may, however, be had through appropriate application for the exercise of the general supervisory jurisdiction of the proper court. Accordingly, respondent, in the alternative, has prayed, in his opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, that his opposition, together with the record as now before the court, be considered as an application for supervisory writs. In the absence of a compliance with the appropriate statutory provisions and rules of court, this informal request may not be accorded the effect of such an application. The appeal, for the reasons assigned, is dismissed at respondent’s cost. Appeal dismissed.