TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Easley v. Easley

Easley v. Easley, 231 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 6, 1977
Docket
No. 31686
Judges
Hill
Citations
231 S.E.2d 763238 Ga. 1801977 Ga. LEXIS 949
Cited by 6 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Hill

Hill, Justice.

1. The former husband filed a "complaint” praying that the former wife be held in contempt for depriving him of his child visitation rights. The trial judge did not err in treating the "complaint” as a motion for contempt citation filed in the divorce case. Code Ann. § 81A-108 (f).

2. There is evidence to support the court’s decision and thus the trial judge did not err in finding the former wife in contempt.

*181 Submitted November 12, 1976 — Decided January 6, 1977.

Guy B. Scott, Jr., for appellant.

Tom Strickland, for appellee.

3. After finding the former wife to be in wilful contempt of court, the trial court entered an unconditional order that she spend two specified weekends in jail. The order finding the wife in contempt shows by its caption, content and purpose that it is a civil contempt order. For the differences between civil and criminal contempt orders, see Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (31 SC 492, 55 LE 797) (1911); Penfield Co. v. S. E. C., 330 U. S. 585 (67 SC 918, 91 LE 1117) (1947). Civil contempt orders imposing a sentence to jail for violation of visitation rights should be conditioned upon compliance.

Stanton v. Stanton, 223 Ga. 664, 668 ( 157 SE2d 453 ) (1967). See also Goetz v. Goetz, 181 Kan. 128 ( 309 P2d 655 ) (1957). Upon remand, the trial court is directed to modify its contempt order so as to make the wife’s confinement in jail conditional upon her noncompliance with the order of the court.

Judgment affirmed with direction.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (remanding for trial court to make a mother’s confinement in jail conditional where “ [t] he order finding the wife in contempt show[ed] by its caption, content and purpose that it [was] a civil contempt order”)
    Stanford v. Pogue, 796 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 21992: 11996: 12002: 12017: 119772026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ensley v. Ensley238 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1977)
  2. Fields v. Fields240 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. 1977)
  3. Thedieck v. Thedieck470 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
  4. Phillips v. Tittle411 S.E.2d 871 (Ga. 1992)
  5. Edwards v. Edwards563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
  6. Stanford v. Pogue796 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)

Most recent

  1. Stanford v. Pogue796 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)
  2. Edwards v. Edwards563 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
  3. Thedieck v. Thedieck470 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
  4. Phillips v. Tittle411 S.E.2d 871 (Ga. 1992)
  5. Fields v. Fields240 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. 1977)
  6. Ensley v. Ensley238 S.E.2d 920 (Ga. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Goetz v. Goetz, 309 P.2d 655 (Kan. 1957) 20
Stanton v. Stanton, 157 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. 1967) 2
Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) 1,599
Penfield Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 330 U.S. 585 (1947) 284

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list