The trial court for this case granted a temporary injunction on the same day the plaintiffs placed the petition. However, the defendant did not comply with the court orders on temporary injunction against its intended discontinuance of the commercial transportation services. Subsequently, on December 23, 1961, the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska moved to court to obtain an order directing that a citation be issued against the defendant to explain why proceedings should not be held against it and punishment given for contempt of court (Nebraska v Frontier Airlines, 1962).
The plaintiffs’ allegation in this petition was that the defendant had knowingly, intentionally, contemptuously, openly and publicly flouted, …show more content…
The appeal mainly involved Section 25-1072, R.R.S.1943, which provides that an injunction ordered by a judge may be enforced in a manner similar to an act of the court. The section also provides that disrespect or disobedience to such an injunction may be treated as contempt of the court or judge and punished accordingly.
On being satisfied by the affidavit of the breach of an injunction, a court or a judge may issue an attachment against the guilty party and at the discretion of the court or judge, may be ordered to pay fine not exceeding $200 (Nebraska v Frontier Airlines, 1962). The purpose of the fine is to make restitution to the wronged or injured party and provide more security to the guilty party to obey the injunction. The section also provides that in case the guilty party further defaults the injunction, closer supervision may be advised until compliance with the injunction is …show more content…
591, as the main case that supported its position. In the mentioned case, the Street Railway Company filed a petition seeking that a temporary injunction be issued against one Joseph Eicher from interfering with the operations of the plaintiff’s street railway system in Council Bluffs. A district court granted the temporary injunction as sought by the plaintiff.
After a hearing, the trial court found Joseph Eicher guilty of violating the injunction, thus in contempt of court. Besides being ordered to pay a $300 fine, Eicher was confined in county jail for three months, to be extended by three months if the fine was not paid at the end of the initial 90 days.
Eicher then took his case to the Supreme Court of Iowa, setting the ground for reversal of the judgment by the district court. One of the reversals was that the trial court did not have the authority or right to impose a fine greater than $50 on the petitioner. The Iowa Supreme Court judged that the statute limiting the penalties for contempt was a legislative prescription of the way the court's jurisdiction ought to be carried out and was constitutional because it was specifically authorized by the Iowa Constitution (Nebraska v Frontier Airlines, 1962). Also, the US Constitution and the Iowa Constitution do not place limitation on the jurisdiction of the district courts of Iowa to punish for contempt of court for violation of court