Helen Hulick, 28, a burglary witness, caused a stir in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on November 9, 1938, by wearing slacks.
A few days later, 
Hulick returned to testify. After she was sworn in as a witness, Judge Arthur Guerin stopped the proceedings and declared:
“The last time you were in this court dressed as you are now and reclining on your neck on the back of your chair, you drew more attention from spectators, prisoners and court attaches than the legal business at hand. You were requested to return in garb acceptable to courtroom procedure.
“Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It’s time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct.
“The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to law for contempt of court.”
Hulick reportedly said that she owned one formal dress and would wear it. The following day, she appeared again in slacks, was found guilty of contempt, and sentenced to five days in jail. Her attorney was released after booking with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court of appeals overturned the decision.
Hulick was free to wear slacks to court. She still had to appear on January 17, 1939, and this 
time Hulick overdressed for the hearing, and in the vernacular of the day, looking like a sweet patootie. No word on the outcome of the burglary trial.