THOMAS D. STEINER, 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 word 'shall' in domestic violence and repeat violence statutes is directory, not mandatory, and the statutes do not unconstitutionally encroach on judicial power.
The district court denied a petition for writ of prohibition concerning the interpretation of 'shall' in domestic violence statutes. This followed pri…
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 Statutory Interpretation Of 'Shall' cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Steiner v. Bentley, 668 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in which the district court denied Thomas D. Steiner’s petition for writ of prohibition on authority of Walker v. Bentley, 660 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(Walker I), and Lopez v. Bentley, 660 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)(Lopez 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 STAT UTES (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)(4), Fla. Const. In Walker v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.1996)(Walker II), we recently 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), which governs the use of contempt proceedings in domestic violence cases, is to be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory. Our answer to the first question rendered the second certified question moot. We also recently 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steiner v. Bentley, 679 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1996)
-
Shalonda Washington v. Hon. Warren Burk, 704 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…w cause orders, will have the practical effect of curtailing their ability to exercise their inherent criminal contempt powers, for no compelling reason. . Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.191. . § 741.30(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). . See Steiner v. Bentley, 679 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1996); Walker v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.1996).…
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)
- Criselda Lopez v. Bentley, 678 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1996)
- Steiner v. Bentley, 679 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1996)