MARGOT BOELKE, PETITIONER,
v.
CATHERINE PEIRCE AND RAYMOND PEIRCE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Margot Boelke sought certiorari relief from a trial court order compelling her to answer requests for admissions in a negligence case. The key issue was whether petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protected her from admitting she was intoxicated at the time of an accident. The court held that the trial court must apply the proper legal test from Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy and DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Company before compelling answers.
The trial court erred by failing to apply the proper legal test for determining the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege. The court must remand the case for the trial judge to reexamine petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege assertion using the test and standards established in Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy and DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Company.
[1] A party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for admissions must have their assertion evaluated by the trial court…
[2] A trial court must apply the standards set forth in Pillsbury Co. …
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“In DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), following the teaching of Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983), this court set forth the test to be used by the trial court in determining the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege under circumstances presented here.”
Establishes the proper legal standard for evaluating Fifth Amendment privilege claims in discovery disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents sued petitioner for injuries caused when petitioner's automobile struck them as pedestrians. The complaint alleged the accident resulted f…
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 Auto Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By petition for writ of certiorari filed by Margot Boelke, petitioner seeks relief from an order of the Broward County Circuit Court that grants respondents’ motion to compel her to answer requests for admissions in a pending auto negligence case.
Respondents sued petitioner for alleged injuries caused by petitioner when the latter drove her automobile into respondents, who were pedestrians. The complaint alleged the accident was caused by petitioner’s negligence at a time when she was intoxicated and unable to properly control her automobile. The request for admissions sought to require petitioner to admit her alleged intoxicated condition at the time of the accident. Petitioner filed objections to the request, based upon her Fifth Amendment privilege. Respondents countered with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370(b), which purports to make admissions under the rule privileged. The trial court agreed and ordered petitioner to file answers.
In DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Company, 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), following the teaching of Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983), this court set forth the test to be used by the trial court in determining the applicability of the Fifth Amendment privilege under circumstances presented here. Subsequent to DeLisi, this court has reversed and remanded several cases to the trial court to consider the matter using the DeLisi test. See DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); American Air Transport, Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corporation, 452 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The record before us does not indicate that the trial judge utilized the DeLisi test to determine the validity vel non of petitioner’s right to exercise Fifth Amendment privileges in this situation.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order under review is quashed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reexamine petitioner’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege utilizing the test and standards set forth in Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983), and DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Company, 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
HERSEY, C.J., and GARRETT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983)
- DeLISI v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Am. AIR Transp., Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 452 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Robert A. DePALMA, D.D.S. v. DePALMA, 538 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)