|
2796 An order holding an attorney in contempt based on the tone of voice he used in arguing with the court is not invalid because it fails to state that the alleged behavior occurred in the "immediate view and presence" of the court, but it is invalid if it fails to recite that the alleged contemnor was first warned that his tone of voice was objectionable.CitationBOYSAW v SUPERIOR COURT (Tone of Voice) 23 C4 215 [See: CCP 1211; Morales v Superior Court 239 CA2 947; In re Hallinan 71 C2 1179; Gallagher v Muni Court 31 C2 784]
|
|
