context: In the contempt order itself, for example, the bankruptcy court found that Hicks had intentionally violated the December 7, 1983 order. Such a finding is not required for a civil contempt.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 659 F.2d 1173, 1183
citation_a.parenthetical: "In civil contempt proceedings ... the failure to comply with the court decree need not be itnentional."
citation_a.sentence: NLRB v. Blevins Popcorn Co., 659 F.2d 1173, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1981) ("In civil contempt proceedings ... the failure to comply with the court decree need not be itnentional.”). Additionally, while the contempt proceedings in this case were instituted by the court, civil contempt proceedings normally "should be instituted by the parties aggrieved." 11 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2960, at 587 (1973); see also WMATA v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, 531 F.2d 617, 622 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("In the civil contempt setting, the court has no independent interest in vindicating its authority should its order be violated.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 531 F.2d 617, 622
citation_b.parenthetical: "In the civil contempt setting, the court has no independent interest in vindicating its authority should its order be violated."
citation_b.sentence: NLRB v. Blevins Popcorn Co., 659 F.2d 1173, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1981) ("In civil contempt proceedings ... the failure to comply with the court decree need not be itnentional.”). Additionally, while the contempt proceedings in this case were instituted by the court, civil contempt proceedings normally "should be instituted by the parties aggrieved." 11 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2960, at 587 (1973); see also WMATA v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, 531 F.2d 617, 622 (D.C.Cir.1976) ("In the civil contempt setting, the court has no independent interest in vindicating its authority should its order be violated.”).