Court Opinion

ID: 9626927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:28:10.487657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:36.362839
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.
The record of this proceeding shows, to my satisfaction, that the petitioner’s actions in connection with the proceeding initiated by him in the federal court went far beyond the limits of professional ethics and cannot be justified as being either necessary or desirable for the protection of his client’s interests. However, the legislature has, by statute, declared that no speech or publication reflecting upon a judge shall be punished as a contempt of court unless made in the immediate presence of the court while in session and in such manner as to actually interfere with judicial proceedings. (Sec. 1209, Code Civ. Proc.) As I have heretofore pointed out, in my opinion, the legislature may, within constitutional guarantees, take from judicial officers the authority to punish persons for acts not committed in the presence of the court which might otherwise amount to a constructive contempt, and I can find no basis for striking down the code provision as a limitation upon inherent judicial power. (Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. (2d) 99 [98 Pac. (2d) 1029].)
*517For these reasons, I believe that each of the judgments of contempt should be annulled.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 28, 1941. Edmonds, J., voted for a rehearing.