STEVE HUSKY, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE LOUIS SAFER, JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petition for writ of prohibition denied where circuit court order directing petitioner to show cause for indirect criminal contempt for violating a dependency order was within statutory authority under Florida Statutes § 39.412.
A circuit court order directing a party to show cause for indirect criminal contempt for violating a prior dependency order is within statutory authority and does not warrant prohibition.
[1] A circuit court order prohibiting conduct that interferes with or violates a prior dependency order falls within the statutory authority of § 39.412, Florida Statutes, an…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Husky was subject to a June 22, 1981 order determining dependency of a child and prohibiting contact between petitioner and the child. An A…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner Husky has sought a writ of prohibition to prevent further action under a circuit court order of September 17, 1981, directing him to show cause why he should not be held in indirect criminal contempt for violating an order of August 26, 1981, entered upon notice and hearing attended by petitioner. The latter order prohibited certain actions by petitioner which were, in effect, declared violative of a prior June 22,1981, order determining dependency of a child, M. E. M., and ordering her to have no contact with petitioner. Petitioner’s reliance upon the reasoning of In re. S. M. G., 291 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), is misplaced because of our conclusion that the August 26 order directed to petitioner is limited to conduct reasonably regarded as “interfering with ... or violating [the June 22nd] order of the court.” § 39.412, Florida Statutes. Although we find no perfect parallel in previous cases involving indirect criminal contempt, cf., Ryals v. United States, 77 F. 2d 97 (5th Cir. 1935); State ex rel. Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1955); Bryant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Somerstein v. City of Miami, 319 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we conclude that the order in question is within the statutory intendment, and that petitioner has failed to show entitlement to relief by writ of prohibition.
DENIED.
McCORD, LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Contempt of Jack R. Elrod. In re The Interest of K.N.L., 455 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…of, or violating any provision of, the juvenile justice act. Thus, the trial court apparently has the authority to hold the adult male in contempt for purposely interfering with the court’s valid order addressed to the juvenile. See Husky v. Safer, 419 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We have no doubt that the record supports that the adult male knowingly interfered with the order in this case and it would appear that if the third party has notice of, or knowledge of, the order yet disobeys it and acts in co…
-
Johnson v. State, 444 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…of the women’s transportation. Appellant also failed to make any affidavit as to the women’s status. Although appellant was not a party to the prior proceeding, in appropriate circumstances a non-party may be held in contempt. Cf. Husky v. Safer, 419 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In the present case appellant’s extensive participation in both plea negotiations and the in-court proceeding, culminating in affirmative material representations and an express assumption of responsibility, are sufficient circu…
-
J.L. and J.L. v. State, 207 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…m in contempt, and because they were not properly served with the order to show cause. We find that the juvenile court was authorized to hold petitioners in contempt. See, e.g., In re Elrod, 455 So. 2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Husky v. Safer, 419 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, we determine that the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motion to quash a writ of bodily attachment, because the record does not demonstrate that they were properly served. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(c)(2).…
Authorities Cited
- Bryant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- State of Fla. ex rel. William Bradford Huie v. Lewis, 80 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1955)
- Somerstein v. City OF Miami Beach, 319 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- In the Interest of S. M. G. v. State, 291 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Ryals v. United States, 77 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1935)