JOHN D. PENNEKAMP AND THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY,
v.
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. IN RE: JOHN D. PENNEKAMP AND THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY
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.
Appeal is the proper method to review a contempt judgment where no detention is involved. Habeas corpus is not applicable in such cases.
Appellants published cartoons and editorials derogatory to the court, leading to a contempt judgment with fines. They sought review through both appea…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
John D. Pennekamp and The Miami Herald Publishing Company were found in contempt of court by Judges Paul D. Barns and Marshall Wiseheart in that they had published cartoons and editorials derogatory to the court. The sentence was that Pennekamp pay a fine of $250.00 and The Miami Herald Publshing Company pay a fine of $1000.00. Said sums to be paid into the Dade County Fine and Forfeiture Fund and in default of payment an execution issue for same.
. Doubt as to the proper method to review the judgment prompted them to enter an appeal and at the same time to apply for a writ of certiorari. Several motions are now before us. One by the state to dismiss the appeal. Another, by the appellants to consolidate the appeal and petition for certiorari and another to defer ruling on the motion to dismiss until final hearing.
The primary question is which is the proper method to review the judgment and should we decide the question now or wait until final hearing? We see no reason to delay deciding *590the question but on the contrary think it should be settled, first.
We are without precedent in Florida on this question, inasmuch as we have reviewed no judgment in contempt like this. The rule is, that ordinarily certiorari will not lie where there is another adequate remedy. Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. (2nd) 541.
Heretofore we have reviewed judgments in contempt by habeas corpus. Such remedy is not applicable to this case inasmuch as the judgment does not detain the appellants. Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature. Rule 37 of this Court provides that appeals shall be taken in criminal eases in conformity to Section 290, Florida Criminal Procedure Act.
We hold that appeal is the proper method to review the judgment. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Kelly, 71 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1954)…judgment of criminal contempt. The judgment is final in its nature and the appropriate method of procuring review is by appeal. The necessity of resort to habeas corpus no longer exists. See Ex parte, Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652, In re Pennekamp, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41. The inquisition by the grand jury related to “the gambling activities in Dade County [*898] ttf Dave Marcus both as to a "conspiracy to violate 'the gambling laws, bookmak'ing, a charge of boókmakiñg, and a charge of conducting a lot…
-
Local Lodge No. 1248 OF Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists v. ST. Regis Paper Co., 125 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)….1958, 104 So. 2d 598; State ex rel. Carroll v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 115, 33 So. 2d 735. . Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848. . Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 711; Pennekamp v. Circuit Court, etc., 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41; Wells v. State, Fla.1949, 38 So. 2d 464. . Seaboard Airline Ry. Co. v. Tampa Southern R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529, 532. . Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797. . Demetree v. State, Fla.1956, 89 So.…
-
Hyman Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…n Florida is that certio-rari will not lie to review the judgment of an inferior court if there is any other adequate remedy. Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 711; Huie v. Lewis, Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 498; Pennekamp v. Circuit Court, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41 (1945); Sirman v. Conklin, 154 Fla. 304, 17 So. 2d 298 (1944); Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 405, 12 So. 2d 124 (1943); Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541 (1942). It is petitioner’s position that he has no other adequate remedy because the or…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence