class members did appeal. First they appealed the district court’s order to this court, and this court affirmed (over a dissent). See Gascho, 822 F.3d at 294. Then they sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, securing amicus support from the Attorneys General of seventeen states in the process. See Brief of the Attorneys General of Ala. & Ariz. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Blackman v. Gascho, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1065, 197 L.Ed,2d 176 (2017) (No. 16-364), 2016 WL 6213015. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Blackman, 137 S.Ct. 1065; Zik, 137 S.Ct. 1065. And on March 21, 2017, after the time to request a rehearing expired, the Supreme Court’s decision became final. Only then did the court’s order become definite. Until the order w (6th Cir. 1958) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 361 U.S. 398, 80
holding that a contempt order labeled by the district court as civil was actually a criminal contempt because the order was retroactive seeking to penalize previous violations and was punitive serving no compensatory purpose holding evidence insufficient to show direct contempt and no basis for indirect contempt because of failure to meet procedural requirements holding that an order which purports to become final upon the happening of an event specified in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final holding that an order under which the amount owed was contingent on a future event was not sufficiently definite and mandatory to serve as the basis for contempt proceedings holding it was within the chancellors  discretion to find that though the husband was in contempt the contempt was not willful