Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)

Citation
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Parent Document
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1977-08-30

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text

498 chars
supra. The scienter requirement of the second element is traditionally the most difficult to establish, but its proof is essential, as the existence of contempt is measured largely by the intent with which the contested conduct was committed. Where there is no intent to defy and degrade the order of the court, there is no contempt even in the face of seemingly contumacious conduct. McMullin v. Sulgrove, 459 S.W.2d 383 (Mo.banc 1970); State v. Koon, supra; State ex rel. Wendt v. Journey, supra.