RICHARD KERSH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court order finding Kersh in indirect criminal contempt and imposing sanctions is quashed because Kersh was denied notice, specifics of the alleged conduct, and a hearing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
An order finding indirect criminal contempt must be quashed when the trial court fails to provide notice of the charge, specifics of the conduct alleged to constitute contempt, and a hearing as required by Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.840.
[1] Indirect criminal contempt proceedings require compliance with Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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“greater procedural due process safeguards are to be imposed for indirect criminal contempt proceedings”
Pugliese v. Pugliese, establishing the heightened procedural protections required in contempt cases
Kersh was found in indirect criminal contempt by the trial court and sanctions were imposed without affording him notice of the charge, specifics rega…
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a trial court order, implicitly finding Appellant Kersh in indirect criminal contempt and providing for sanctions. As Mr. Kersh was not afforded notice of the charge, specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, or a hearing, we quash the order appealed. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.840; Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla.1977) (greater procedural process safeguards are to be imposed for indirect criminal contempt proceedings); Pryor v. Wille, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (order for indirect criminal contempt quashed when trial court failed to comply with rule 3.840); Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (order finding defendant guilty of indirect criminal contempt reversed because the trial court failed to follow rule 3.840), review denied, 634 So. 2d 626 (Fla.1994); Benarroch v. Crawford, 516 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[T]he petitioner was denied procedural due process in this case because Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840, which governs indirect criminal contempt, was not followed in any respect by the trial court below.”); Bryant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (“It is well recognized in Florida that greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when one is accused of indirect criminal contempt.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Ira Smith, 705 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…against self-incrimination); Washington v. Burk, 704 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (speedy trial rule applied to indirect criminal contempt proceeding against defendant), rev. granted, 695 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1997); Kersh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (the defendant must be afforded notice of the charge, the specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, and a hearing). In the instant case, the trial court refused to initiate an indirect criminal contempt proce…
-
W.C. v. Smith, 898 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ndant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt, and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties); Kersh v. State Fam Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding that defendant must be afforded notice of the charge, the specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, and a hearing); Pryor v. Wille, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quashing an order for indirect c…
-
J.M.P.U. v. The State of Fla. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 858 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…dure 3.840. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840; Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985) (indirect criminal contempt proceeding must fully comply with rule 3.840 and defendants are entitled to due process protections); Kersh v. State Farm, Fire & Cas. Co., 686 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (defendant must be afforded notice of the charge, the specifics as to what conduct constituted the alleged contempt, and a hearing); Pryor v. Wille, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (order for indirect criminal contempt quashed…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Bryant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Objective Mktg. Action, Ltd. v. Hills, 516 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez v. Se. Bank, N.A., 516 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Pryor v. Wille, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jimerson v. State, 644 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)