The resident judge when not disqualified in the original proceeding and the judge entering any order, judgment or decree shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding for contempt arising out of such order, judgment or decree.

History: Laws 1941, ch. 106, § 1; 1941 Comp., § 16-104; 1953 Comp., § 16-1-4.

Judicial authority. — One judge's prior oral interlocutory order staying discovery depositions pending decision on a motion to dismiss did not divest another judge of the same court of authority to enter a subsequent interlocutory order concerning depositions in the same case; and having authority as a judge of the district court to enter the orders concerning depositions, the second judge thus had authority to enter orders imposing sanctions when the discovery orders were violated. Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 1975-NMCA-099, 88 N.M. 324, 540 P.2d 254, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 319, 540 P.2d 248.

Attorney failing to produce deponents. — Where defendant city's administrative officer directed certain deponents to comply with the directions of its attorney with regard to attendance or nonattendance, and the attorney failed to produce these deponents after proper notice and court order, there was nothing showing an abuse of discretion on the court's part in holding the attorney in contempt. Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 1975-NMCA-099, 88 N.M. 324, 540 P.2d 254, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248.

Rules of criminal law apply. — Where proceeding was one for criminal contempt, it was governed by rules of criminal law, and proof of guilt had to be beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood, 1957-NMSC-071, 63 N.M. 156, 315 P.2d 223.

Merits of injunction are not open to question in a contempt proceeding originating subsequent to final judgment. If a court has jurisdiction when it issues an injunction, then that order must be obeyed as long as it is in force. State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood, 1957-NMSC-071, 63 N.M. 156, 315 P.2d 223 (1957).

When different judge should conduct contempt hearing. — A person cited for contempt, whether direct or indirect, is not automatically entitled to a hearing on the contempt charge in front of a different judge; it is only when a judge has become so embroiled in the controversy that he cannot fairly and objectively hear the case, or when he or his staff will necessarily be a witness in the proceeding, that the judge is precluded from hearing the case. State v. Stout, 1983-NMSC-094, 100 N.M. 472, 672 P.2d 645.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt § 187 et seq.

Disqualification of judge in proceedings to punish contempt against or involving himself or court of which he is a member, 64 A.L.R.2d 600, 37 A.L.R.4th 1004.

Disqualification of judge in state proceedings to punish contempt against or involving himself in open court and in his actual presence, 37 A.L.R.4th 1004.

Abuse or misuse of contempt power as ground for removal or discipline of judge, 76 A.L.R.4th 982.

Contempt: state court's power to order indefinite coercive fine or imprisonment to exact promise of future compliance with court's order - anticipatory contempt, 81 A.L.R.4th 1008.

17 C.J.S. Contempt § 53.