DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite Duval v. Duval, 322 A.2d 1.

18 citing documents.

  • James Faro & a. v. Land's End Association N.H. 2019
    fail[ing] to comply with a court order.” Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425 (1974).
  • Strobel v. Rosier Ariz. Ct. App. 2018
  • Land America Commonwealth Title Insurance v. Kolozetski 992 A.2d 681 N.H. 2010
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425 (1974) (defining civil and criminal contempt actions); see also RSA 458:51 (2004) (permitting court to award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees for failure to obey order or decree under RSA chapter 458).
  • State v. Veale 972 A.2d 1009 N.H. 2009
    Although we have recognized that a due process right to counsel might attach in “complicated nonsupport contempt hearing[s],” Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 427 (1974), we do not find Duval controlling here.
  • State v. Lopez 931 A.2d 1186 N.H. 2007
    In Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 426 (1974), we recognized that in some non-support civil contempt cases “there may be issues of sufficient complexity so as to require the defendant to be assisted by counsel for a competent presentation of their merits,” and thus found that trial courts have the discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent defendan
  • State v. Hall 908 A.2d 766 N.H. 2006
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 426 (1974) (“[federal] due process does not require the right to counsel in every instance where the possibility of incarceration exists”).
  • In re Guardianship of Brittany S. 792 A.2d 384 N.H. 2002
    The petitioner relied upon Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422 (1974), and Sheedy v. Merrimack County Superior Court, 128 N.H. 51 (1986), to support her argument that due process may require counsel in civil contempt proceedings dependent upon the complexity of the issues involved.
  • State v. Stewart 706 A.2d 171 N.H. 1998
    Criminal contempt “occurs as a result of a defendant’s interference with the court’s process or dignity,” Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425, 322 A.2d 1, 3 (1974), and has been characterized as a “public wrong.” Id.
  • State v. Martina 600 A.2d 132 N.H. 1991
    This interference is characterized as a criminal or public wrong, and the imposition of a fine or imprisonment is punitive rather than remedial.” Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425, 322 A.2d 1, 3 (1974) (citations omitted).
  • Sheedy v. Merrimack County Superior Court 509 A.2d 144 N.H. 1986
    In Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 322 A.2d 1 (1974), we held that it is within the discretion of the trial court whether to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant in a civil contempt proceeding.
  • Cox v. Slama 355 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cook 481 A.2d 823 N.H. 1984
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 322 A.2d 1 (1974); cf. Stapleford v. Perrin, 122 N.H. 1083, 453 A.2d 1304 (1982).
  • Doe v. Doe 408 A.2d 785 N.H. 1979
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425, 322 A.2d 1, 3 (1974); see Wright v. Wright, 119 N.H. 102,104, 398 A.2d 837, 838 (1979).
  • Wright v. Wright 398 A.2d 837 N.H. 1979
    The *104 defendant, having complied with the court order, had purged himself of any alleged civil contempt.
  • Royer v. State Department of Employment Security 394 A.2d 828 N.H. 1978
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 322 A.2d 1 (1974); Bruno, The Right to Counsel in Civil Contempt Cases, 16 N.H.B.J.
  • State v. Gross 379 A.2d 804 N.H. 1977
    We hold that the record would not support such a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • State v. Linsky 379 A.2d 813 N.H. 1977
    State v. Towle, 42 N.H. 540 (1861); Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425, 322 A.2d 1, 3, (1974).
  • Mason Furniture Corp. v. George 362 A.2d 188 N.H. 1976
    Duval v. Duval, 114 N.H. 422, 425, 322 A.2d 1, 3 (1974); D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies 98 (1973).