Cited by

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285 (1978).

offense that is separate and distinct from the matter in litigation out of which the contempt arose.” Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285 (1978) (quotation omitted).

n to his present status.” The defendant argues that his refusal to be transported could not have constituted direct contempt subject to summary proceedings because the elements of the offense did not occur in the presence of the court, and because his failure to appear “did not constitute a threat that immediately imperiled the administration of justice.” Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285-86 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 854 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853 (1978); Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631 (1988).

Civil contempt proceedings may result in money fines payable to the complainant or in an indeterminate jail sentence until the contemnor complies with the court order.” Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853 (1978) (emphasis added).

Ct., 114 N.H. 790, 791, 330 A.2d 446, 447 (1974) (authority of district court to punish for contempt “is required to prevent acts or conduct which would obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice”); Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978) (authority of superior court); State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171, *116 179-80, 471 A.2d 340, 344-45 (1983) (it is necessary that the judiciary be permitted to control its own proceedings).

Not only had the superior court expressly advised him and his chosen lay counsel of the steps required to appeal the June 1982 order, but he had had the benefit of his own prior experience in appealing an earlier zoning action, Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 854 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853-54 (1978).

generally Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853-54 (1978).

After the third day of trial, the judge excused the jury for the day, correctly told the defendants that they would not be allowed to use the competing harms defense (RSA 627:3), and advised them to read the contempt decision in Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 285, 385 A.2d 851, 853-54 (1978).

Town of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978).

Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978).

In Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978), this court pointed out that [c] ontempt is “an offense at common law — a specific and substantive offense” that is separate and distinct from the matter in litigation out of which the contempt arose.

generally Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978).

Although we look askance at such ex parte orders, the central issue before us is factually similar to the case of Nottingham v. Cedar Waters, Inc., 118 N.H. 282, 385 A.2d 851 (1978), decided this day.