in California the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not critical since the proceedings for criminal and civil contempt are the same with those procedural rights and safeguards appropriate for criminal contempt afforded in civil contempt proceedings
How later courts described this case
- in California the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not critical since the proceedings for criminal and civil contempt are the same with those procedural rights and safeguards appropriate for criminal contempt afforded in civil contempt proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDMONDS, J.
For the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in City of Vernon v. Superior Court, ante, p. 520 [ 241 P.2d 243 ], I concur in the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of contempt because they did not comply with the injunction within the time specified.
However, the belated “arrangements” made by the petitioners to comply with the injunction are even more thorough than the action taken by the city of Vernon. Culver City has attempted, unsuccessfully, to sell bonds to meet its share of the cost of the new plant. Counsel for Culver City will not give an opinion as to marketability until its liability is determined in a pending declaratory relief action which it has brought against the city of Los Angeles. In the alternative, such an opinion probably could be secured if Culver City would contract with Los Angeles for payment of its share of the cost of the Hyperion plant. But the terms of such contract also are dependent upon the existing contractual rights of the parties. Thus, Culver City has reached an impasse in its efforts to comply with the injunction.
For these reasons, in my opinion, Culver City has made all “arrangements” necessary to meet its obligations without abandoning its rights under existing contracts which are specifically preserved by the judgment in the abatement proceeding.
I would, therefore, modify the judgment hy striking therefrom the order of continuing imprisonment for petitioners Thomas J. Carroll, Curtis J. Davis and J. Bay Klots.