The following excerpt is from Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1983):
While civil contempt may have an incidental effect of vindicating the court's authority and criminal contempt may permit an adversary to derive incidental benefit from the fact that the sanction tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience, such incidental effects do not change the primary purpose of either type of contempt. Gompers, 221 U.S. at 443, 31 S.Ct. at 498. Where, however, a judgment of contempt contains an admixture of criminal and civil elements, "the criminal aspect of the order fixes its character for purposes of procedure on review." Penfield Co. of California v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 330 U.S. 585, 591, 67 S.Ct. 918, 921, 91 L.Ed. 1117 (1947). 3
Similarly, where the fine imposed is part compensation and part punishment,
Page 779
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.