EX PARTE C. E. PEADEN
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 prohibition, holding that a sworn answer denying contempt does not automatically entitle a party to discharge when the alleged contempt involves continued violation of an injunction.
No, a sworn answer denying contempt does not automatically entitle the party to discharge. The court can still take testimony to determine the truth of the denial.
“It appears that the alleged contempt consists in the continued doing what lie was commanded not to do by an injunction order issued by the Circuit Court as a, court of equity, therefore the application for a Writ of Prohibition is denied.”
This quote establishes the basis for the court's denial of the writ, linking the contempt to a violation of an injunction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn application was made for a rule to show cause why the Circuit Court should not be prohibited from taking testimony in a contempt proceeding. The pa…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
[*274] Per Curiam.
An application having been made for a rule to show cause why the Circuit Court should not be prohibited from taking testimony as to the truth of a sworn answer in a contempt proceeding specifically denying the alleged contempt, upon the ground that the denial under oath entitled the party to a discharge. It appears that the alleged contempt consists in the continued doing what lie was commanded not to-do by an injunction order issued by the Circuit Court as a, court of equity, therefore the application for a Writ of Prohibition is denied. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, text 442, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492; 13 C. J. 75; 6 R. C. L. 534.
This case is wholly unlike Ex Parte Earman and Ex Parte Biggers, 85 -Fla. 293,322.
Writ denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Horace E. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1957)…ourt of competent jurisdiction. Historically the writ of prohibition is a process by which a superior court prevents an inferior court from exercising jurisdiction which it does not have or from exceeding its admitted jurisdiction. Ex parte, Peaden, 88 Fla. 273, 102 So. 160. In State ex rel. McGregor v. Peacock, 113 Fla. 816, 152 So. 616, we declined to prohibit a trial judge from proceeding to hear and determine a contempt matter on the ground that it was within his jurisdiction to determine in the first…
-
State ex rel. Frank M. Hamilton v. Worth W. Trammell, 146 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1941)…he circuit court has the power and jurisdiction to adjudge parties before the court to be in contempt of court and may exercise that power either erroneously or properly subject to review in the appellate court on habeas corpus. See Ex Parte Peaden, 88 Fla. 273, 102 Sou. 160; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 Sou. 813; Ex Parte Turner, 73 Fla. 360, 74 Sou. 314; Ex Parte Bostwick, 102 Fla. 995, 136 Sou. 669; Ex Parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 Sou. 755, 31 A. L. R. 1226. It, therefore, follows that the rule n…
Authorities Cited
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911)