From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartsell v. Hartsell

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1991
328 N.C. 729 (N.C. 1991)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that "[i]n civil contempt the defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show that he was not in contempt and the defendant refuses to present such evidence at his own peril"

Summary of this case from Shumaker v. Shumaker
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

No. 405A90

Filed 2 May 1991

APPEAL by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30 (2) from a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 99 N.C. App. 380, 393 S.E.2d 570 (1990), affirming the order of Johnston (Robert P.), J., at the 13 December 1988 Session of District Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 April 1991.

James, McElroy and Diehl, P.A., by William K Diehl, Jr. and Barbara J. Hellenschmidt, for plaintiff appellee.

Douglas E. Brafford for defendant appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Hartsell v. Hartsell

Supreme Court of North Carolina
May 1, 1991
328 N.C. 729 (N.C. 1991)

holding that "[i]n civil contempt the defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show that he was not in contempt and the defendant refuses to present such evidence at his own peril"

Summary of this case from Shumaker v. Shumaker

noting that where punitive relief was not ordered, "the trial court was not required to afford the defendant all procedural and evidentiary safeguards required for criminal contempt proceedings"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Barbour
Case details for

Hartsell v. Hartsell

Case Details

Full title:BILLIE M. HARTSELL v. GENE W. HARTSELL

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: May 1, 1991

Citations

328 N.C. 729 (N.C. 1991)
403 S.E.2d 307

Citing Cases

Tyll v. Berry

”); Middleton v. Middleton, 159 N.C.App. 224, 227, 583 S.E.2d 48, 49–50 (2003) (“This Court has held that the…

Turner v. Turner

“The standard of review for contempt proceedings is limited to determining whether there is competent…

35 Citing Cases