Court Opinion

ID: 9778039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:30:43.159461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.296622
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
SIMEONE, Senior Judge.
Within the time limited by the Rules, respondents have filed a motion for rehearing or in the alternative to transfer the cause to the Supreme Court. In their motion for rehearing, respondents allege that the opinion handed down May 10, 1988 overlooks or misinterprets certain matters of law and fact because (1) it assumes that there were no documents constituting the orders of contempt or warrants of commitment and (2) an order of commitment is unnecessary when contemnor is assessed a fine rather than confined.
At the time the original opinion was filed, neither party furnished the court with certain exhibits which had some bearing on the principles stated in the opinion. After the opinion was handed down the relator filed handwritten orders of contempt entered by each of the respondents. We have reviewed these additional exhibits. Although contrary to some of the facts stated in the opinion, these exhibits — handwritten orders of contempt — do not substantially change the result of the opinion nor satisfy all of the procedures outlined therein.
The motion for rehearing or in the alternative to transfer to the Supreme Court is denied.
CRANDALL, P.J., concurs.
GARY M. GAERTNER, J., dissents on denying motion for rehearing.