![]() ![]() Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 337 F.2d 127, 135 (D.C.Cir.1964) (substantial compliance found where only a few technical violations of court order) Aspira of New York, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, 531 F.2d 617, 621 (D.C.Cir.1976) (coercive civil contempt proceeding) Southern Railway v. ![]() 1550, 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. 1976) (application for contempt by private party, so arguably a civil contempt proceeding) (defendants failed to take "all reasonable steps within their power" to assure compliance with court orders), cert. 1979) (civil contempt) (traditional defense of substantial compliance available) Sekaquaptewa v. 1981) (criminal contempt) (good faith effort to comply with court order a defense) U. It is clear that substantial compliance with the terms of a consent judgment is a valid defense to a charge of criminal contempt, and it appears to be a defense to a finding of civil contempt as well. Defendants argue that the district court declined to hold them in contempt because they were in substantial compliance with the consent judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |