Summary

Parker v. Illinois — Dissent

We have been cited to no authority holding that in Illinois the order to show cause does not have the effect of an order for production if cause is not shown or, in that event, would not support an order of contempt for failing to produce.↑ Petitioner never obtained a hearing on the truth of the statements in the documents even though that issue was relevant to the merits of the slander action against Shamberg which gave rise to the contempt proceedings.
Source: Wikisource

Parker v. Illinois — Dissent

When petitioner sought review of the original contempt order in the Supreme Court of Illinois he obtained the only review of those constitutional contentions which the state procedure offered him. That court by denying the writ of error must be presumed to have passed on the merits of the constitutional questions in the case. It is inconceivable that the supreme court would have passed on them any differently if review of the so-called amanded order had later been requested.
Source: Wikisource

Parker v. Illinois — Dissent

For the Illinois Appellate Court set aside one order adjudging petitioner in contempt for the tone of his answer to a certain pleading filed by Shamberg on the ground that the charges in Shamberg's pleading, which was not made a part of the contempt order justified the tone of the answer.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature