CRISELDA LOPEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
E. RANDOLPH BENTLEY, JUDGE, ETC., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a district court decision denying a petition for writ of prohibition that sought to prevent prosecution for indirect criminal contempt based on violation of a repeat violence injunction. The Court applied its prior holding in Walker v. Bentley that the word "shall" in contempt statutes is directory rather than mandatory, allowing courts to enforce injunctions through their inherent contempt powers.
Trial courts have inherent contempt powers to enforce repeat violence injunctions. The word "shall" in section 784.046(9)(a) governing repeat violence cases is directory rather than mandatory, and courts may enforce such injunctions through their inherent contempt authority, consistent with the Court's holding in Walker II regarding domestic violence injunctions.
[1] The word "shall" in statutory provisions governing contempt proceedings for domestic or repeat violence injunctions is to be interpreted as directory, not mandatory.
[2] Trial courts possess inherent powers to enforce injunctions for protection against repeat violence, similar to their powers to enforce domestic violence injunctions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“IS THE WORD "SHALL" AS USED IN SECTION 741.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994), TO BE INTERPRETED AS MANDATORY RATHER THAN AS PERMISSIVE OR DIRECTORY?”
The first certified question of great public importance regarding statutory interpretation of "shall" in contempt proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCriselda Lopez was charged with indirect criminal contempt based on her violation of a repeat violence injunction. Lopez petitioned for a writ of proh…
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 Injunction Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Lopez v. Bentley, 660 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in which the district court denied Criselda Lopez’s petition for writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the trial court from proceeding against Lopez on charges of indirect criminal .contempt based on her violation of a repeat violence injunction. The district court denied the petition on authority of Walker v. Bentley, 660 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(Walker I). In Walker I, the district court certified the following questions as being of great public importance:
IS THE WORD “SHALL” AS USED IN SECTION 741.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994), TO BE INTERPRETED AS MANDATORY RATHER THAN AS PERMISSIVE OR DIRECTORY?
IF INTERPRETED AS MANDATORY, IS SECTION 741.30(8)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1994), AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE CONTEMPT POWER OF THE JUDICIARY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
660 So. 2d at 321. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In Walker I, the district court interpreted the first certified question as it applies to section 741.30, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in domestic violence eases. In the instant case, the district court interpreted that same question as it applies to section 784.046(9)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in repeat violence cases. The district court found the reasoning in Walker I to be equally applicable to the repeat violence statute.
In Walker v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.l996)(Walker II), we approved the opinion of the district court in Walker I and answered the first question by finding that the word “shall” in section 741.30(8)(a) is to be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory. Our answer to the first question rendered the second certified question moot. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the reasoning in the Walker case is equally applicable to the instant statute. As the district court stated in Lopez, “[cjlearly if the trial court has those inherent powers to enforce an injunction against domestic violence, we conclude that the trial court has those same inherent powers to enforce an injunction for protection against repeat violence.” 660 So. 2d at 1139.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Walker II, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant ease.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steiner v. Bentley, 679 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1996)…ecently approved the opinion in Lopez I, by finding that the reasoning in Walker II applies equally to section 784.046(9)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in repeat violence cases. See Lopez v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1996) (Lopez II). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Walker II and Lopez II, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.…
-
Ross v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1996)…ecently approved the opinion in Lopez I, by finding that the reasoning in Walker II applies equally to section 784.046(9)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in repeat violence cases. See Lopez v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1996)(Lopez II). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Walker II and Lopez II, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant ease. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.…
-
Ramirez v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1996)…approved the opinion in Lopez I, by finding that the reasoning in Walker II applies equally to section 784.046(9)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in repeat violence [*336] cases. See Lopez v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1996)(Lopez II). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Walker II and Lopez II, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case. It is so ordered. KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1996)
- Walker v. Honorable E. Randolph Bentley, 660 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Criselda Lopez v. The Honorable E. Randolph Bentley as Cir. Judge of the Tenth Jud. Cir., 660 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)