IN RE THE FORFEITURE OF 1973 FORD TRUCK, VIN F15BNC00554 AND VIN F37YNR20538
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.
This case involves an attorney appealing a contempt of court finding and fine. The appellate court reversed the contempt order, finding insufficient grounds for the trial court's action.
No, the attorney's actions did not demonstrate an intention to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court, nor did they lessen the court's dignity, thus there was an insufficient basis for the contempt finding.
“The power to punish for criminal contempt should be exercised cautiously and sparingly.”
Establishes the standard for exercising contempt power.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn attorney, representing the petitioner, requested and received a trial date. On the trial date, the attorney could not proceed because a key witness…
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 Voluntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, as counsel for the petitioner, appeals from an order of the trial court finding him in contempt of court and assessing a fine of $50.
On May 2, 1986, appellant, as attorney for the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Department, requested and received a trial date for this forfeiture action the following week. Appellant appeared at the appointed time and advised the court that he could not proceed because the petitioner’s key witness was unavailable. Appellant had tried to subpoena the witness but was unable to locate him due to the witness’s change of address. Appellant thereupon moved for a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a). However, the trial court admonished appellant that he was trifling with the court’s time and adjudicated him in contempt of court and fined him $50.
As has been said before, “[t]he power to punish for criminal contempt should be exercised cautiously and sparingly.” Ray v. State, 352 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). See also Bailey v. State, 460 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It should not be used to avenge personal affronts, but to punish assaults or aspersions upon the authority and dignity of the court. Ray, 352 So. 2d at 111.
We have carefully considered the scenario presented here and are convinced that no showing has been made that appellant had any intention to embarass, hinder or obstruct the court in the administration of justice or in any way lessen its dignity. Accordingly, we fail to find a sufficient basis in the record for the action taken by the trial court. The order appealed from is therefore reversed.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emanuel v. State, 601 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…e is condoned nowhere else in the law. For that reason, the power must be cautiously and sparingly used (citations omitted). Fabian v. State, 585 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (Farmer J., dissenting). See also In re Forfeiture of 1973 Ford Truck, 507 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). While the law has long recognized the power to punish perjury by direct criminal contempt, the power is exercised lawfully only where a three prong test is met: (1) the alleged false answers had an obstructive effect, (2) there…
-
Dougherty v. State, 550 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…r, it has been held that the power to punish for criminal contempt should be exercised cautiously and sparingly “to punish assaults or aspersions upon the authority and dignity of the court.” In re the Forfeiture of 1973 Ford Truck, VIN F15BNC00554, 507 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Given the obvious circumstances of a court deputy’s office having insufficient manpower to service all the judges of the subject court, and the appellant’s response herein, the record does not support a finding of contempt. Acco…
Authorities Cited
- RAY v. State of Fla. & the Honorable J. Robert Durden, 352 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Bailey v. State, 460 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)