NAME: Bradley Weston Taggart, Petitioner v. Shelley A. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Stuart Brown, et al.
JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Case CommentaryYes. Yes. Yes.
This is all fine and well.
But when may a plaintiff (or defendant) have contempt for a court?
Well, I mean, the simple answer is always. So clearly, I mean when may satisfaction be demanded and restitution reasonably expected of a court?
An eleven page Opinion reduced to three easily digested quotes (all with internal quotation marks and excessive punctuation omitted, because retaining either only serves to reduce clarity).
Civil contempt should not be resorted to where there is a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.
Civil contempt is a severe remedy and that principles of basic fairness require that those enjoined receive explicit notice of what conduct is outlawed.
Civil Contempt usually is not appropriate unless those who must obey an order will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.
The standard a court must use when deciding contempt is no fair ground of doubt.
And since the Appeals Court Vacated (disagreed with the lower court), I do not see how there can possibly be no fair ground of doubt in this particular case.
And in the foregoing, to my jaundiced, flippant, non-lawyerly eye, resides the entirety of this case.
Strict Liability: actions only, intent does not matter
Contumacy: contempt by any other name is still how I feel about you
Bankruptcy Advance Determination: my web search yielded many results that pointed back to this case; so as a whole, it not very likely to be a meaningful term
Bankruptcy Automatic Stay: my web search for this phrase (on the other hand) yielded numerous hits and refers to the fact that upon filing Bankruptcy, creditors must stop trying to collect any debts... outside of the (Bankruptcy?) Courts, but of course
Stay: stop or yield other actions pending the result of this action