Establishing secure connection…Loading editor…Preparing document…

Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

MOTION TO FIND DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF , MISSISSIPPI

PLAINTIFF

VS.

NO.

DEFENDANT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, , and files this Motion to Find the Defendant in

Contempt of Court against the Defendant, , and for cause would show unto this Honorable

Court the following facts:

I.

That Plaintiff, , is an adult resident citizen of , Mississippi, residing

at .

II.

That Defendant, , is an adult resident citizen of , Mississippi, who

may be served with process of this Court at his residence address located at .

III.

That on this Court rendered its Final Judgment of Divorce in this cause, incorporating therein the parties' Child Custody Agreement and Property Settlement Agreement.

IV.

That pursuant to the terms of the above mentioned decree the Defendant agreed to pay child support in the amount of Dollars ($ ) per month, for the support and

maintenance of the parties' minor child, , born . That said child support payments

were to be paid in two (2) installments of Dollars ($ ) each on the first (1st) and

fifteenth (15th) day of each month commencing .

V.

That Defendant has wholly failed and refused to pay any child support to Plaintiff since to the date of this filing. That Defendant is currently in arrears for child support payments

from to in the total sum of ). That Plaintiff's Affidavit to Child

Support Arrearage is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".

VI.

That pursuant to the terms of the Divorce Decree, Defendant was required to maintain a health and accident insurance policy covering the medical, dental, hospital and drug expenses of

the parties' minor child; and Defendant was further required to pay for all medical, dental, hospital, and drug expenses not covered by said insurance. That Defendant has never provided

medical coverage for the minor child and Plaintiff has been forced to maintain said insurance on the minor child. That Defendant should be ordered to reimburse Plaintiff for the premiums paid

on said insurance policy in the amount of ). Further, that Defendant has wholly

failed and refused to pay those medical expenses not covered by insurance, which expenses Plaintiff was forced to pay. Therefore, Defendant should be ordered to reimburse Plaintiff for

said medical expenses in the total sum of ).

VII.

That pursuant to the terms of the Divorce Decree, the Defendant agreed to maintain a ) Life Insurance Policy with the minor child of the parties designated as beneficiary.

Plaintiff has reason to believe Defendant has never purchased such a policy and, therefore, requests this Court to require Defendant to provide proof of said policy.

VIII.

That the Defendant herein refuses to abide by the provisions of the decree of this Court and there is no justification for Defendant's refusal to comply with said decree except that he

does not desire to do so, and that such refusal on his/her part is so willful, obstinate and persistent that he/she is guilty of contempt of this Court and should be cited to appear before this

Honorable Court to show cause, if any, he/she can, why he/she should not be adjudged in contempt thereof.

IX.

That the Defendant herein should be required to pay unto the Plaintiff a reasonable sum as attorney's fees for services rendered in this regard, and to be rendered in this cause, in that

such services were made necessary as a result of said Defendant having willfully failed and refused to comply with the provisions of the divorce decree.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that process be issued hereon for the Defendant, , requiring him/her to appear and respond to this Motion, and

that upon such hearing of this cause, this Court will find the Defendant in contempt of the Final Decree of this court and will compel the Defendant to comply with the said Decree, and perform

the following: (1) that Defendant pay unto the Plaintiff the sum of ) for child

support payments currently in arrears; (2) that Defendant pay unto the Plaintiff the sum of ) as reimbursement for doctor bills and prescription drug bills of the parties' minor child

paid by Plaintiff; (3) That Defendant pay unto Plaintiff the sum of ) as reimbursement for premiums paid by Plaintiff for health insurance covering the parties' minor

child; (4) that Defendant provide Plaintiff with proof of a ) Life Insurance Policy

on his/her life with the parties' minor child designated as beneficiary; (5) that Defendant be required to pay unto Plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee and all costs of Court herein; and (6)

that the Court will cause the Defendant to be imprisoned in the County Jail until he/she

shall have purged him/herself of such contempt as this Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff prays for such additional and further relief, as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

COUNTY OF

PERSONALLY appeared before me, the undersigned authority in and for the County and State aforesaid, the within named , who after being by me first duly sworn, states on her

oath that the matters, facts, and things contained in the foregoing Motion to Find Defendant in Contempt of Court are true and correct as therein stated.


NOTARY PUBLIC

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this the day of , .

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

COUNTY OF

PERSONALLY came and appeared before me the undersigned authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, the within named who after having been first duly sworn on oath,

states that the following is a correct statement of child support payments that should have been paid by the Defendant :

CHILD SUPPORT

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $

through

($ per month)

TOTAL AMOUNT PAID:

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FROM TO $

Affiant states that was ordered to pay child support in the sum of $ per

month. That as of is in arrears for child support in the sum of $ .


NOTARY PUBLIC

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, this the day of , .

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

Enter text

What Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 is and why it matters

Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 is a United States Supreme Court opinion cited by practitioners and scholars. This page summarizes the decision's procedural posture, the legal issues presented, and the Court's reasoning, and it explains when the opinion is likely to be persuasive in subsequent filings. It also identifies common drafting elements when citing the case in briefs, how to assemble supporting citations and records, state-law considerations that may affect its application, and practical steps for preserving and sharing documents that rely on the decision.

Why attorneys and researchers consult Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409

Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 remains useful for clarifying legal principles and supporting precedent-driven arguments; a concise summary helps attorneys, clerks, and researchers assess relevance quickly without reading the full opinion.

Why attorneys and researchers consult Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409

Who relies on this opinion and how it is used

Primary audiences who consult Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 include litigators, appellate counsel, academics, and regulatory analysts seeking precedent and reasoning.

  • Litigators and appellate counsel use the opinion to support or distinguish federal-law arguments in briefs and oral argument.
  • Scholars and law clerks cite the case when analyzing doctrinal development or historical treatment of the issue.
  • Regulatory analysts and agencies review the opinion to interpret federal statutes and administrative authority in policy drafting.

Typical professional roles that work with this case

Appellate Attorney

Appellate attorneys rely on Hovey v. Elliott to craft issues on appeal, distinguish fact patterns, and present controlling precedent; they extract holdings, summarize reasoning, and prepare pinpoint citations for briefs and oral argument.

Legal Researcher

Researchers and academic writers use the opinion to trace doctrinal history, compare majority and dissenting rationales, and situate the decision within broader statutory and constitutional frameworks in law review articles and treatises.

Core elements to include when summarizing Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409

A professional case brief of Hovey v. Elliott should cover procedural posture, facts, issues, holdings, reasoning, and practical implications for counsel and courts.

Procedural Posture

State the parties, lower court decision, and how the case reached the Supreme Court; include whether review was by appeal, certiorari, or other procedural vehicle.

Facts

Summarize material facts succinctly, focusing on those the Court relied upon; separate contested factual findings from agreed facts or stipulated matters.

Legal Issue

Formulate the central legal question in a single sentence framed as an issue for decision, specifying statutes or constitutional provisions at issue where applicable.

Holding

Record the Court's answer to the issue, phrasing the holding precisely and noting any limitations or scope statements included by the majority.

Reasoning

Outline the analytical steps and precedent relied upon, distinguishing majority reasoning from concurring or dissenting views that may affect application.

Practical Implications

Describe how the holding affects practice areas, potential follow-on litigation, and steps counsel should take when relying on or distinguishing the opinion.

Step-by-step: preparing a filing that cites Hovey v. Elliott

Follow these steps when citing or relying on Hovey v. Elliott in court filings or research.

  • 01
    Locate Opinion: Retrieve the official reporter or certified opinion copy.
  • 02
    Confirm Citation: Verify 167 U.S. 409 matches the cited passage.
  • 03
    Summarize Holding: Draft a concise one-sentence holding description.
  • 04
    Attach Excerpts: Include pinpointed excerpts and relevant pages.

Configure your document workflow for case citations

Configure your digital workflow to retrieve, attach, authenticate, and retain materials supporting Hovey v. Elliott citations.

Field Configuration
Source Official reporter or certified PDF
Extraction Pinpoint holdings and page ranges
Authentication Preserve metadata and audit trail
Retention Store for required retention period

How to assemble and attach opinion excerpts for filings

A typical workflow for using Hovey v. Elliott in filings includes retrieval, extraction, citation, and attachment steps.

  • Retrieve: Locate official reporter or certified PDF.
  • Extract: Select holding and key reasoning passages.
  • Cite: Format citation and add pin cites.
  • Attach: Append excerpts and include page images.

Technical requirements for electronic submission of case materials

Digital platforms should support searchable PDFs, reliable pagination, and secure storage when working with Hovey v. Elliott citations.

  • File Types: PDF, DOCX, or TIFF
  • Integrations: Court e-filing systems and research tools
  • Authentication: Audit trails, timestamps, and hashes

Key document metadata and record elements to capture

Case Name: Hovey v. Elliott (use full caption)
Citation: 167 U.S. 409, official reporter citation
Court: United States Supreme Court, highest federal court
Opinion Date: Include full month, day, and year
Pinpoint Pages: List specific pages with key passages
Document Format: PDF or certified copy preferred

Common pitfalls to avoid when preparing citations and attachments

  • Failing to verify the reporter citation or using an unofficial page numbering that mismatches pagination in the bound reporter can confuse readers and cause mis-citation.
  • Quoting dicta as controlling law without distinguishing the narrow holding often leads to overstatement of precedent and weakens argument credibility in briefs.
  • Neglecting to summarize procedural posture and lower court findings deprives judges of necessary context for evaluating the case's application to current facts.
  • Submitting poorly scanned or OCR-unreadable opinion copies during electronic filing can hinder review and may prompt a court order for a legible submission.

Consequences of incorrect citation, misstatement, or faulty attachments

Citation Error: May mislead court
Procedural Waiver: Issue may be forfeited
Sanctions Risk: Court could impose sanctions
Malpractice Exposure: Professional liability claim risk
Precedential Misuse: Overbroad application risk
Evidence Exclusion: Supporting records may be barred

Best practices for citing and relying on Hovey v. Elliott

Practical tips to cite and use Hovey v. Elliott include precision, context, and reliable document handling to support arguments.

Verify reporter pagination
Confirm the page numbering in 167 U.S. corresponds to the excerpt you attach; mismatched pagination can cause clerk confusion and mislead readers reviewing quoted text.
Use pinpoint citations
Provide exact page citations for the holding or notable phrases; judges and opposing counsel rely on precise pin cites to evaluate the relevance of cited passages.
Provide factual context
Briefly summarize underlying facts and procedural history in your filing so the court can assess factual analogy, contested issues, and whether the precedent supports your requested relief.
Preserve original files
Retain certified copies, download-quality PDFs, and metadata; when filing electronically, ensure attachments preserve pagination and include an audit trail for authenticity.

Timing considerations when assembling filings that rely on precedent

Key timing considerations for citing Hovey v. Elliott during research, drafting, and filing are listed below.

Research and retrieval deadline:

Locate the opinion and corroborating authorities before filing deadlines.

Drafting citation checks:

Verify citations during final proofreading.

Filing with attachments:

Attach printed page images when required.

Service and proof:

Ensure service copies include the citation.

Responding to orders:

Comply promptly with court requests for originals.

Sequential milestones for preparing a case-dependent filing

Milestones for preparing a filing that relies on Hovey v. Elliott map research, drafting, review, and submission stages.

01

Research Complete

Confirm holding and relevant pages.

02

Draft Brief

Integrate concise citation and analysis.

03

Internal Review

Check pin cites and supporting sources.

04

File

Submit via e-filing preserving PDF pagination.

Electronic signatures versus cryptographic digital signatures: key differences

Key distinctions between simple electronic signatures and cryptographic digital signatures for authenticating legal documents used frequently in filings.

Criteria Simple e-signature Digital signature
Technology image or audit trail pki certificate
Non-repudiation audit evidence only cryptographic non-repudiation
Typical Use routine agreements regulated filings
Regulatory Fit esign/ueta fits 21 cfr / pki preferred

Practical examples showing how the opinion is used in practice

Real-world examples show how Hovey v. Elliott is used in filings, academic work, and administrative arguments.

Appellate Brief

An appellate brief cites Hovey v. Elliott for a narrow federal question about statutory interpretation and procedural posture.

  • Supports a narrow reversal on appeal.
  • The brief includes the holding and key pages, contrasts factual differences with controlling precedent, and attaches certified copies of the opinion; it explains why the case's logic applies to the client's circumstances.

Law Review Article

A scholar examines Hovey v. Elliott to trace doctrinal shifts and to critique the Court's interpretive approach across similar cases.

  • Highlights the long-term doctrinal impact.
  • The article cites the opinion, contrasts it with later decisions, discusses implications for statutory interpretation, and provides guidance for future litigation and judicial treatment; it includes full citations and a research appendix.

Frequently asked questions about citing and submitting materials related to Hovey v. Elliott

Answers to common questions about using Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 in filings, citations, and electronic document workflows.


Need help? Contact support

be ready to get more
Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users