Elysium, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1968 No. Civ. 33518Published

Before: Wapner

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party who has paid a fine for contempt of an injunction that is subsequently reversed on appeal is entitled to a refund of that fine.

Issues

Whether a party is entitled to a refund of a contempt fine paid for violating an injunction that was later determined to be void upon appeal.

Disposition. Writ of mandate issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is established law that no one may be punished in contempt for the disobedience of a void order.”

“Does the rule of Kreling apply where the order of contempt has become final and the judgment or order satisfied? We think that it does and so hold because to do otherwise would be manifestly unjust.”

“The court having once exacted the fine must now order its return.”

[764]

WAPNER, J. pro tem.

The facts which are not in dispute disclose the following: On April 29, 1965, in a ease entitled Cowles Magazine and Broadcasting, Inc. v. Elysium, Inc., defendant was enjoined by the superior court pending trial from utilizing the word “Look” as part of the title of its magazine “Nude Look.” Defendant appealed and on November 7, 1967, the order was reversed (255 Cal.App.2d 731 [63 Cal.Rptr. 507]; hearing denied in the Supreme Court).

In the meantime, while the appeal was pending, an order to show cause in contempt issued and an order was made holding Elysium in contempt of court for twelve separate violations of the injunction and it was ordered to pay to the clerk of the court a fine of $1,200, plus penalty assessment. Elysium paid the fine on March 1,1966.

Subsequent to the reversal upon appeal, Elysium made a motion in the superior court for refund upon an invalid judgment. This motion was denied and Elysium then moved for reconsideration, contending that said denial was contrary to the decision in

Kreling

Superior Court,

18 Cal.2d 884 [118 P.2d 470], The motion for reconsideration was denied and petitioner now seeks to compel the superior court “to forthwith order the refund to petitioner of all sums paid as a fine re contempt for the alleged violation of the aforementioned void Preliminary Injunction. ’ ’

The first question presented is whether petitioner is entitled to the refund.

It is established law that no one may be punished in contempt for the disobedience of a void order.

(Kreling

Superior Court, supra,

18 Cal.2d 884, 885.) The Supreme Court, in

In re Berry,

68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273], states: “In this state it is clearly the law that the violation of an order in excess of the jurisdiction of the issuing court cannot produce a valid judgment of contempt [citations], and that the ‘jurisdiction’ in question extends beyond mere subject matter or personal jurisdiction to that concept described by us in

Elysium, Inc. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief