STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. EDGAR B. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
DAN HARDIE, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Edgar Bennett Davis petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus after being committed to jail for contempt of court for failure to pay alimony. The Court denied the petition, holding that a Circuit Court's judgment in a prior habeas corpus proceeding is res adjudicata and can only be reviewed by writ of error, not by a subsequent habeas corpus petition.
The Supreme Court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus where a Circuit Court has already reviewed the legality of the imprisonment in a prior habeas corpus proceeding and found the commitment valid, because that judgment is res adjudicata and can only be reviewed by writ of error. The Court denied the petition without prejudice to submission of an amended petition showing new facts or changed circumstances.
“The judgment of the Circuit Court remanding the prisoner to custody under the contempt commitment is res adjudicata of the lawfulness of the imprisonment under the contempt commitment.”
Establishes the core principle that a prior judicial determination of the legality of an imprisonment is conclusive and bars subsequent collateral review by habeas corpus.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was committed to jail for contempt of court for failing to pay court-ordered alimony. He sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court to …
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 Alimony Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Edgar Bennett Davis, applied to the Chief Justice for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.. vThe petition on its face showed that Davis had been committed to jail for contempt of court in that he had failed to pay alimony as decreed against him. The petition further showed that after the commitment for contempt was ordered, the petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the. Circuit Judge to review the propriety of the commitment and to obtain his release therefrom; that at a hearing on such writ of habeas corpus petitioner was remanded to jail under the commitment for contempt.
The effect of allowing the prayer of the present petition would be to order the release of Davis from the contempt commitment that was reviewed and held valid on the habeas corpus proceedings had in the Circuit Court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court remanding the prisoner to custody under the contempt commitment is res adjudicata of the lawfulness of the imprisonment under the contempt commitment. A judgment of the Circuit Court in a habeas corpus proceeding can only be reviewed by writ of error. Tyler v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144. A writ of habeas corpus should not be issued by the Supreme Court, or by a Justice thereof, except upon a showing of reasonable grounds to apprehend that the imprisonment complained of in the application for the writ, is without authority of law. Lee V. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632.
While habeas corpus may issue on a very informal application (Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 Sou. Rep. 666, L. R. 1918 E 949 Ex parte Pells 28 Fla. 67, 9 Sou. Rep. 831) the writ itself should not be allowed where the petition for *439habeas corpus shows on its face facts conclusively rebutting the petitioner’s assertion that his imprisonment is unlawful. Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82, 39 Sou. Rep. 149.
In this case the remedy of the petitioner is to seek the review, by writ of error, of the judgment of the Circuit Court which remanded him to custody under the' contempt-commitment, because the judgment of the Circuit Court on the- habeas corpus proceeding already had in the Circuit Court is res adfudicata of the lawfulness of the prisoner’s custody under the contempt commitment, so long as that judgment stands unreversed or not set aside. For this reason the issuance of another writ of habeas corpus must be denied, in the absence of some showing of some new fact or change in condition occurring since the Circuit Court judgment in habeas corpus, that would make- the imprisonment complained of now unlawful, notwithstanding it was lawful when the Circuit Court remanded the prisoner.
The writ of habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice to the right to submit an amended petition if facts exist which bring the case within this opinion.
Writ of habeas corpus denied without prejudice.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1937)…ons 5441-5443, C. G. L., which make both a judgment remanding, as well as one discharging, a prisoner conclusive until reversed in the manner provided by the statute. D’Allessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231; State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; State v. Prescott, 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533; State v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721. But that question is not properly presented for our consideration here. The information here under attack reads as follows: “Robert R. Taylor, County Sol…
-
Skipper v. Doyle Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1933)…t. Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 Sou. Rep. 289; Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632; Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 Sou. [*872] Rep. 376; Frederick v. Rowe, 105. Fla. 193, 140 Sou. Rep. 915; State, ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 Sou. Rep. 97. In the present case the writ of habeas corpus was applied for by a petition which showed on- its face that the applicant for the writ had been duly indicted, 'tried, adjudged guilty and sentenced to State Prison in the Circuit Court, whose judgmen…
-
State ex rel. George Couper Gibbs v. The Cir. Court, 140 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1939)…ll be prohibited. So, after a binding final judgment on appeal, the lower court may be prohibited from allowing the same matter to be relitigated. State ex rel. Hamilton v. Mayo, 123 Fla. 491, 167 So. 34; State ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 So. 632. The rule nisi is made permanent. It is so ordered. Terrell, C. J., Whitman, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur. Justices Drown and Buford not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Corpus, 28 Fla. 67 (Fla. 1891)
- Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1918)
- Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1909)
- Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1905)
- Tyler v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1877)