{
  "id": 2453416,
  "name": "Patricia T. Kenwick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony N. Kenwick, Defendant-Appellee; People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Patricia T. Kenwick, Contemnor-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kenwick v. Kenwick",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 48,970",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "112",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 2d 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 NE2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 Ill 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2620722
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/403/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 NE2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ill App 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5644284
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/312/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ill App 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3248257
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/282/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 Ill 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2490631
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/384/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 NE2d 310",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill2d 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12126232
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "263"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/2/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 NE2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill2d 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2707956
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/6/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 NE 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 Ill 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5259513
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/344/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 NE 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 Ill 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4714732
      ],
      "year": 1912,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "499"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/256/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 NE2d 333",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 Ill 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2665432
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "299"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/412/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 US 289",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3533595
      ],
      "year": 1888,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/128/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 NE 441",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 Ill 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5292437
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1933,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/353/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 NE2d 936",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 Ill 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2575816
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/367/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 5401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.9714146579799e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4221481638504793
    },
    "sha256": "51ea615fb43331da62fb6b1341ccf0cff3fccc3be338552f0f94ff3602c8a0c2",
    "simhash": "1:56c3e0eded2ac8d3",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:34.759357+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BURMAN, P. J. and ENGLISH, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Patricia T. Kenwick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony N. Kenwick, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Patricia T. Kenwick, Contemnor-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal hy Patricia T. Kenwick, respondent, from a direct contempt order entered in a divorce proceeding. The court found that she had \u201cknowingly and wilfully testified falsely\u201d and sentenced her to the County Jail of Cook County for a period of 15 days.\nThe facts upon which the finding was entered are reeited in the order of court. In a post-decree petition seeking a rule to show cause, Patricia Kenwick alleged under oath that her former husband had tampered with her automobile in violation of a restraining order. At the hearing on the petition, her former husband denied the charges and, both parties consenting, the trial court ordered them to submit to a polygraph examination.\nIn the contempt order, without setting forth the questioned testimony, the court found \u201cas a result of said polygraph examination that the testimony of the defendant, denying the said allegations was true and that the testimony of [Patricia Kenwick] with respect thereto was false; that the filing of the petition for a rule to show cause was solely for the purpose of putting in motion a proceeding which tended to put justice and the administration thereof in disrepute.\u201d The court further found that Patricia Kenwick \u201cfailed to establish the charges in said petition and knowingly and wilfully testified falsely concerning the same and by reason thereof . . . has committed a direct contempt of this court.\u201d\nDirect contempt, that is, contumacious acts committed in court and in the presence of the judge, which he observes and of which he thus has personal knowledge, may be adjudged and punished in a summary manner without prior notice, written charges, plea, issue or trial. (People v. Berof, 367 Ill 454, 11 NE2d 936 (1937); People v. Sherwin, 353 Ill 525, 187 NE 441 (1933); Ex parte Terry, 128 US 289 (1888).) If the contempt alleged is indirect rather than direct \u2014i. e., \u201cone which in whole or in an essential part occurred out of the presence of the court and which is therefore dependent for its proof upon evidence of some kind\u201d \u2014 then constitutional requirements of due process demand that notice, citation or rule to show cause be served upon the alleged contemnor. People v. Sherwin, 353 Ill 525, 528, 187 NE 441; People v. Gholson, 412 Ill 294, 299, 106 NE2d 333 (1952).\nIn a direct contempt proceeding, the act having been committed in the presence of the court, evidence is unnecessary and no record need be made. (People ex rel. Owens v. Hogan, 256 Ill 496, 499, 100 NE 177 (1912).) But the accused has a right of appeal, and it is therefore necessary for the court to enter a written order, setting forth fully, clearly, and specifically, the facts out of which the contempt arose, so that the reviewing court may determine if the committing court properly entered the order. (People v. Rongetti, 344 Ill 107, 176 NE 292 (1931); People ex rel. Andrews v. Hassakis, 6 Ill2d 463, 129 NE2d 9 (1955).) As stated in People v. Loughran, 2 Ill2d 258, at page 263, 118 NE2d 310 (1954):\n\u201cAll the essential facts must he fully set forth and no part thereof can be supplied by presumptions or inferences (People v. Tavernier, 384 Ill 388,) and no facts which did not occur in the presence of the court should be taken into consideration by the court in adjudging guilt or in fixing the punishment. People v. Rongetti, 344 Ill 107.\u201d\nTested by the application of these principles, we conclude that the order here considered cannot stand, because the court\u2019s finding that respondent\u2019s sworn testimony was false is based on the \u201cresult of [a] polygraph examination\u201d administered at a detective agency. The order thus affirmatively indicates that all elements of the alleged offense were not matters within the personal knowledge of the court. There is nothing in the order which discloses that the court personally knew or could have known that respondent\u2019s testimony was false. The alleged false swearing was not admitted by respondent, and the finding of perjury was based solely upon extrinsic evidence\u2014 the polygraph examination \u2014 to which the court assigned conclusive probative weight. In such a case, respondent\u2019s testimony could not, and did not, constitute a direct contempt. (People v. LaScola, 282 Ill App 328 (1935); People ex rel. Butwill v. Butwill, 312 Ill App 218, 38 NE2d 377 (1941); People v. Berof, 367 Ill 454, 11 NE2d 936 (1937); People v. Harrison, 403 Ill 320, 86 NE2d 208 (1949).) The power summarily to punish for direct contempt \u201cshould be exercised with utmost caution and strictly restricted to acts and facts seen and known by the court, and no matter resting upon opinions, conclusions, presumptions or inferences should be considered.\u201d People v. Loughran, 2 Ill2d 258, 263, 118 NE2d 310 (1954).\nFor the reasons given, the order of the trial court is reversed and respondent is ordered discharged.\nReversed.\nBURMAN, P. J. and ENGLISH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCarthy, Witry, Lyon & McCarthy, of Chicago, for contemnor-appellant.",
      "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Patricia T. Kenwick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony N. Kenwick, Defendant-Appellee. People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Patricia T. Kenwick, Contemnor-Appellant.\nGen. No. 48,970.\nFirst District, First Division.\nApril 15, 1963.\nMcCarthy, Witry, Lyon & McCarthy, of Chicago, for contemnor-appellant.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Edward J. Hladis and Marvin E. Aspen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 118,
  "last_page_order": 122
}