A. V. CARO, PETITIONER,
v.
A. E. MAXWELL, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, 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 denied a writ of mandamus, holding that orders adjudging a party in contempt for violating an injunction are not subject to appeal. The court reasoned that contempt matters are exclusively within the purview of the adjudicating court.
No, orders adjudging a party in contempt for violating an injunction are not subject to appeal. Such matters are exclusively within the province of the court that issued the contempt order.
“An appeal will not lie in such case, a- matters of contempt of the authority of a court are entirely within the province of the court adjudging the same, and .not subject to be reviewed upon writ of error or appeal.”
Establishes the core legal principle that contempt orders are not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Caro sought a writ of mandamus to compel a judge to approve an appeal bond. Caro was attempting to appeal an order that found him guilty of…
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 Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This Chief-Justice delivered the opinion of the court.
Application fora writ of mandamus to compel the Judge to approve an appeal bond in case of an appeal attempted to be taken by Caro, from an order adjudging him guilty of a contempt in violating au injunction issued by the court, and imposing a fine therefor. An appeal will not lie in such case, a-matters of contempt of the authority of a court are entirely within the province of the court adjudging the same, and .not subject to be reviewed upon writ of error or appeal. Easton vs. The state, 39 Ala., 551; Ex-parte Summers, 5 Iredell, 149; The State vs. Tipton, 1 Blackf., 166; Ex-pàrte Kearney, 7 Wheat., 38; Ex-parte Stickney, 40 Ala., 160; Cossart vs. State, 14 Ark., 538; Bunch vs. State, 14 ib., 544; Ware vs. Robinson, 9 Cal., 107; Howard vs. Durand, 36 Ga.. 346; Hunter vs. State, 6 Inch, 423; First Cong. Ch. vs. Muscatine, 2 Iowa, 69 ; Bickley vs. Com., 1 J.
J. Mar., 575; Turner vs. Com., 2 Met., (Ky.) 619; Watson vs. Thomas, 6 Ditt., 248; People vs. Simonson, 9 Mich., 492; Romeyn vs. Caplis, 17 Mich., 449; State vs. Towle, 42 N. H., 540; Coryellvs. Holcombe, 9 N.
J. Eq., 650; Johnston vs. Com., 1 Bibb, 598; Case of Yates, 4 Johns. R., 443; Buel vs. Street, 9 Johns. R., 443; McCredie vs. Senior, 4 Paige, 378; People vs. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y., 263; State vs. Sheriff, 1 Mill., (S.
C. Court,) 145; Martin’s Case, 5 Yerger, 456; Casey vs. State, 25 Tex., 380; Vilas vs. Burtow, 27 Vt., 56; In re Cooper, 32 Vt., 253; Ex-parte Edwards, 11 Fla. Writ denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1896)…harged. A suggestion comes in limine from counsel opposed to the writ that the court will not review, on habeas corpus, an order made by the Circuit Court adjudging a person guilty of contempt! Reference is made to-the decision in Caro vs. Maxwell, 20 Fla. 17, holding; that a contempt order will not be reviewed on appeal or writ of error, and also to the language used in Ex parte Edwards, 11 Fla. 174, ‘ 'that in the absence of any statutory limitations or restrictions, the power of the severál courts ove…
-
Neering v. State, 141 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…ration, have terminated the punishment imposed within a reasonable time had not this writ been sued out. “Ordinarily an appeal does not lie from an order of a court of general jurisdiction imposing punishment for contempt of court. Caro v. Maxwell, 20 Fla. 17; Fla. Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 45 Fla. 295, 33 So. 991; Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82, 107 So. 251. As at common law every court of record was the exclusive judge of contempt committed against its authority and dignity, the judgment of a [*617]…
-
Pennekamp v. State, 156 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1945)…ampa Southern R. R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529. The early contempt cases to reach this court were brought by attachment as in England. State v. Johnson, 13 Fla. 33. In some of these cases it was held that appeals would not lie. Caro v. Maxwell, 20 Fla. 17. Later their validity was tested by habeas corpus. Ex parte Senior, Jr., 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652. The practice in contempt has. never been régulated by statute in Florida as it is by Congress in the Federal Courts. It has been regulated by the State C…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38 (U.S. 1822)