John Breuner Co. v. Bryant
Cases that cite this one
48 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- McGuire v. Brenkle CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
- In re Buckley (Cal. 1973)
- Kyne v. Eustice (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
- Vacation Rental Owners etc. v. City of Rancho Mirage CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
- Butler v. Butler (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- In re R.G. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
- In re R.G. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
- Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
- Smith v. Habegger (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
- Albertson v. Warriner (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)
- Walker v. Walker (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
- Berry v. Berry (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
- Smith v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
- John Breuner Co. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)
- Jahanshahi v. Rosenfeld CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
- Dutton v. Marinescu CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
- McCord v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
- Keeney v. John Crane, Inc. CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
- Owl Drug Co. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- C. L. Tilden & Co. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- Walkup Drayage & Warehouse Co. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- Merchants Express Corp. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- Hagstrom's Food Stores, Inc. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- Haslett Warehouse Co. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
- Manning's Inc. v. Bryant (Cal. 1951)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff obtained a judgment directing defendant to cancel certain charges and remove them from plaintiff’s reserve account which was maintained by defendant under the Unemployment Insurance Act. (Stats. 1935, p. 1226.) After affirmance of the judgment on appeal (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant, 35 Cal.2d 897 [218 P.2d 4]), plaintiff filed an affidavit seeking to have defendant punished for contempt for alleged failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the judgment. The trial court discharged defendant, finding that he had complied with the judgment and was not guilty of contempt. Plaintiff then appealed, and defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the contempt judgment is not appealable. This contention must be sustained.
It is well settled that orders and judgments made in cases of contempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both where the trial court imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner was discharged. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [211 P. 225]; Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 169 Cal. 46, 50-53 [145 P. 532] ; Moon v. Moon, 62 Cal.App. 2d 189, 191 [144 P.2d 599]; Thomas v. Thomas, 4 Cal.App. 2d 317, 318 [40 P.2d 581] ; Abbott v. Abbott, 24 Cal.App. 475, 477 [141 P. 939].) An order or judgment in a contempt matter may, however, be reviewed by certiorari (Wilson v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.2d 458, 459 [189 P.2d 266]; Gue v. Dennis, 28 Cal.2d 616 [170 P.2d 887]; Weber v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.2d 144, 148 [156 P.2d 923]; Phillips v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.2d 256, 257 [137 P.2d 838]; Taylor v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 244, 246 [125 P.2d 1]), and, where appropriate, by habeas corpus (In re De Silva, 33 Cal. 2d 76, 79 [199 P.2d 6]; Kreling v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 884, 887 [118 P.2d 470]).
The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence J. concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.