Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Smith v. Georgia Pacific Corp.
Citations: 395 N.E.2d 214; 76 Ill. App. 3d 667; 32 Ill. Dec. 267; 1979 Ill. App. LEXIS 3279Docket: 78-403
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 28, 1979; Illinois; State Appellate Court
In the case of Dean E. Smith v. Georgia Pacific Corporation, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed an appeal by attorney James P. Kellstedt, who was held in direct criminal contempt due to comments made during a trial after the court sustained objections to his examination of a witness. During the proceedings, Kellstedt attempted to establish the witness's familiarity with boom trucks and related equipment used in painting. Multiple objections were raised by opposing counsel, leading the trial court to sustain these objections, deeming some questions too general or irrelevant to the case. Kellstedt expressed frustration with the court's rulings, asserting that the questions were pertinent and questioning the consistency of the objections allowed during cross-examination. Despite his attempts to clarify the witness's qualifications and experiences related to scaffolding and ladders, the court ultimately sustained objections against him, prompting Kellstedt to withdraw questions and seek further clarification from the court. The appellate court subsequently reversed the contempt judgment, indicating that Kellstedt's comments, made in the context of ongoing disputes over evidence admission, did not warrant contempt. The court found Mr. Kellstedt in contempt for his remarks during proceedings, which were deemed highly improper. Despite his request for a hearing on the contempt ruling, the court imposed a $250 fine to be paid within three days without granting him the opportunity to respond. The document also addresses the absence of a responsive brief from the appellee, noting that while this deprives the court of the appellee's arguments, it does not automatically justify reversal unless prima facie reversible errors are evident. A trial judge can summarily punish for contempt if the conduct disrupts court proceedings or undermines its authority. The court indicated that while Mr. Kellstedt's sarcasm was improper, it did not rise to the level of contempt since it was an attempt to represent his client and not intended to obstruct justice. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment. Judges Barry and Scott concurred with the reversal.