In re Vance

Decided March 7, 1891

California Supreme Court · decided 1891-03-07

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Tyler v. Connolly · Sanchez v. Newman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-03-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1967

5 state decisions

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 →

Sharpstein, J.

¶1This appeal is from a judgment in a

¶2case of contempt, and the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal does not lie in such a case, because it is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure that “ the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” In Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, the question is carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that no appeal lies from a judgment imposing a fine of more than three hundred dollars for a contempt of court, expressly overruling People v. O’Neil, 47 Cat. 109. Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30, was followed in Sanchez v. Newman, 70 Cal. 210.

¶3We see no ground for disturbing the rule laid down in Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 30.

¶4Appeal dismissed.

¶5McFarland, J., De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Harrison, J., Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.