CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Police judge has no jurisdiction to punish for indirect contempt. In re Rich, 10 Kan. App. 280, 282, 62 P. 715.

2. Supreme court has inherent power to punish for contempt. The State v. Ross, 74 Kan. 260, 85 P. 803.

3. No right to trial by jury for indirect contempt. The State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615, 97 P. 790.

4. Copy of judgment violated need not be attached to accusation. The State v. Walker, 78 Kan. 680, 97 P. 862.

5. Filing of answer to petition without objection waives formal accusation. Butler v. Butler, 82 Kan. 130, 132, 107 P. 540.

6. Accusation for indirect contempt need not be verified. Nichols v. Quinn, 94 Kan. 742, 744, 147 P. 1103.

7. Distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt. Holloway v. Water Co., 100 Kan. 414, 420, 167 P. 265.

8. Procedure for civil contempt considered. Smith v. Clothier, 113 Kan. 47, 55, 213 P. 1071, 1075; Hartman v. Wolverton, 125 Kan. 202, 205, 263 P. 789.

9. Cited in affirming suspension for contempt. In re Hanson, 134 Kan. 165, 169, 5 P.2d 1088.

10. Contempt proceeding for violation of liquor nuisance injunction is criminal proceeding. State, ex rel., v. Miller, 147 Kan. 242, 244, 75 P.2d 239.

11. Written accusation alleging violation of injunction, without giving dates, held good. Alster v. Allen, 147 Kan. 489, 495, 77 P.2d 960.

12. Contempt proceeding for violating liquor injunction is criminal in nature. State v. Jones, 149 Kan. 766, 773, 89 P.2d 878.

13. Evidence supported finding of indirect contempt for violating injunction. State v. Martin, 155 Kan. 801, 806, 130 P.2d 601.

14. Procedure not followed; writ of habeas corpus granted. In re Gambrell, 160 Kan. 620, 623, 164 P.2d 122. Rehearing denied: 161 Kan. 4, 6, 165 P.2d 760.

15. Proceeding to protect private rights not criminal; section inapplicable. Frey v. Willey, 161 Kan. 196, 197, 166 P.2d 659.

16. "Thereupon" defined; accusation filed 5 days after defendant's appearance sufficient. State, ex rel., v. Wilson, 162 Kan. 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 515, 178 P.2d 277.

17. Applicability to liquor nuisance injunction proceeding mentioned but not applied. State v. Coleman, 168 Kan. 159, 162, 211 P.2d 81.

18. Contempt proceeding limited to determining whether accused is guilty as charged. Haynes v. Haynes, 168 Kan. 219, 225, 212 P.2d 312.

19. Mentioned in discussing contempt finding of Colorado district court. Shaefer v. Milner, 169 Kan. 324, 337, 219 P.2d 663.

20. Practicing law without license in probate court is contempt of supreme court. In re Root, 173 Kan. 512, 249 P.2d 628.

21. Mentioned; persons cited for direct contempt may be summarily punished. In re Ferris, 175 Kan. 704, 714, 267 P.2d 190. Reversed: Courtney v. Schroeder, 348 U.S. 933, 75 S. Ct. 355, 99 L. Ed. 732.

22. Discussed; indirect contempt proceedings held criminal; no appeal from finding of not guilty. Hendrix v. Consolidated Van Lines, Inc., 176 Kan. 101, 111, 269 P.2d 435.

23. Formal accusation essential and prerequisite to finding of indirect contempt. Weber v. Sutorius Bread Company, 185 Kan. 178, 180, 341 P.2d 965.

24. Indirect contempt not reviewable as specification of error in criminal action. State v. Eldredge, 197 Kan. 694, 703, 421 P.2d 170.

25. In original proceeding for contempt of supreme court order, commissioner's findings adopted. State v. Blase, 208 Kan. 969, 494 P.2d 1224.

26. Sentence of five days in jail without possibility for release if contempt was purged constituted improper punitive punishment for indirect civil contempt. In re J.T.R., 47 Kan. App. 2d 91, 271 P.3d 1262 (2012).