Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Cal. 2d 877

John Breuner Co. v. Bryant

California Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1951

California Supreme Court · decided 1951-03-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of comtempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both where the trial court imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner was discharged. [Citations.] An order or judgment in a contempt matter may, however, be reviewed by certiorari [citations], and, where appropriate, by habeas corpus [citations] ." The general rule is stated in 12 Cal.Jur.2d at page 100: “A review in contempt eases can be had only by habeas corpus, certiorari, and in some instances, prohibition—whichever may be appropriate under the circumstances. The scope of the inquiry is limited to jurisdiction. In such proceedings, the reviewing court may examine the acts charged, to determine if they are contemptuous, for the purpose of passing upon the jurisdiction.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 213 Cal. App. 2d 183 - Smith v. Habegger

Relies on 22 Cal. 2d 256 - Phillips v. Superior Court of Kern Cty. · Kreling v. Superior Court · Wilson v. Superior Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-03-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 237 - In Re Buckley (1973), 115 Cal. App. 2d 92 - Smith v. Smith (1952)

42 state decisions

3801951196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GIBSON C. J.

¶1 Plaintiff obtained a judgment directing defendant to cancel certain charges and remove them from plaintiff’s reserve account which was maintained by defendant under the Unemployment Insurance Act. (Stats. 1935, p. 1226.) After affirmance of the judgment on appeal (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant, 35 Cal.2d 897 [218 P.2d 4]), plaintiff filed an affidavit seeking to have defendant punished for contempt for alleged failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the judgment. The trial court discharged defendant, finding that he had complied with the judgment and was not guilty of contempt. Plaintiff then appealed, and defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the contempt judgment is not appealable. This contention must be sustained.

¶2 It is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both where the trial court imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner was discharged. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [211 P. 225]; Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 169 Cal. 46, 50-53 [145 P. 532] ; Moon v. Moon, 62 Cal.App. 2d 189, 191 [144 P.2d 599]; Thomas v. Thomas, 4 Cal.App. 2d 317, 318 [40 P.2d 581] ; Abbott v. Abbott, 24 Cal.App. 475, 477 [141 P. 939].) An order or judgment in a contempt matter may, however, be reviewed by certiorari (Wilson v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.2d 458, 459 [189 P.2d 266]; Gue v. Dennis, 28 Cal.2d 616 [170 P.2d 887]; Weber v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.2d 144, 148 [156 P.2d 923]; Phillips v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.2d 256, 257 [137 P.2d 838]; Taylor v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 244, 246 [125 P.2d 1]), and, where appropriate, by habeas corpus (In re De Silva, 33 Cal. 2d 76, 79 [199 P.2d 6]; Kreling v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 884, 887 [118 P.2d 470]).

¶3 The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶4 Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence J. concurred.

/36/cal2d/877 · .json · Public domain