STATE EX REL. M. S. MCGREGOR
v.
J. E. PEACOCK, COUNTY JUDGE
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.
An attorney sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a county judge from proceeding with contempt charges against him. The Florida Supreme Court held that county judges have jurisdiction to determine contempt matters in the first instance, and prohibition is not an appropriate remedy when alternative remedies exist.
The county judge has jurisdiction under Section 4161 C.G.L. to determine in the first instance whether alleged acts constitute contempt. Prohibition is not an appropriate remedy; if the judge exceeds his powers or commits palpable error, appropriate remedies in due form of law exist for redress of such errors.
“the County Judge has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether or not the acts set forth in the citation for contempt do, or do not, constitute a contempt under the circumstances alleged”
Establishes the county judge's jurisdictional authority to hear contempt matters initially
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM. S. McGregor, an attorney at law, was cited for contempt by the County Judge of Volusia County. McGregor sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the…
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 Jurisdiction Of County Judge'S Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case of original jurisdiction in which the petitioner, an attorney at law, applied for a writ of prohibition to inhibit the County Judge of Volusia County, who is respondent, from further proceeding to hear and determine a contempt matter instituted with reference to petitioner.
Upon demurrer to the petition in prohibition, a majority of the Court] hold that the demurrer should be sustainecl and the rule nisi in prohibition should be quashed, on the ground that, under Section 4161 C. G. L., 2534 R. G. S., the County Judge has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether or not the acts set forth in the citation for contempt do, or do not, constitute a contempt under the *817circumstances alleged. If the County Judge should exceed his powers in the premises and adjudge petitioner guilty of a contempt because of matters and things charged and shown which are in law, no basis for a contempt adjudication, an appropriate remedy in due form of law exists for the redress of any palpable error or abuse which may be made to appear, either as to law or fact. Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 Sou. Rep. 185, 107 Fla. 858, 143 Sou. Rep. 436; Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 Sou. Rep. 182; State ex rel. Brooks v. Freeland, Circuit Judge, 103 Fla. 663, 138 Sou. Rep. 27.
Judicial wisdom and the experiences of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to courts to punish for contempt be not used' except to prevent actual and direct obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice, by, the acts of attorneys at law in the manner or means used to present their controversies in the courts.
This is especially true of cases where attorneys have felt it their duty to invoke the provisions of our statutes allowing a challenge to be interposed against judges on the ground of their alleged prejudice. In such cases attorneys at law when acting in good faith, should not be unduly embarrassed in the performance of their official responsibilities by being subject to an atmosphere of threatened punishment for contempt that may make the attorney’s position before the court one of being psychologically overawed.
But even in cases of proceedings to invoke the disqualification of a judge, the power to punish for contempts exists where there is such uncalled for acts or wrongful conduct as amounts to an actual and direct obstruction to, or interference with, the administration of justice, and it is" only with erroneous or abusive exercises of. such power to *818punish for contempt that this Court can be' concerned when properly called on to grant relief.
Rule nisi in prohibition quashed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1946)…of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to courts to publish for contempt be not used except to prevent actual and direct obstruction or interference with the administration of justice. State ex rel. McGregor v. Peacock, 113 Fla. 816, 152 So. 616. Determination of the facts, and inferences to be drawn therefrom, is necessarily left to the decision of the trial judge, and his conclusions as to the acts done, and as to their contemptuous character or effect, will not be lightly d…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Lon C. Gillham v. Honorable Charles M. Phillips, Jr., 193 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…is without jurisdiction to act in a cause, and may be specifically invoked against a judge when a party is about to be cited for contempt on the basis of acts which could not constitute contempt of court. See State ex rel. McGregor v. Peacock, 1934, 113 Fla. 816, 152 So. 616; State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, Fla.1957, 99 So. 2d 231; State ex rel. Gary v. Davis, 1922, 83 Fla. 422, 91 So. 267; Giblin v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 490, 29 So. 2d 18; and the annotations appearing in 136 A.L.R. 715. In the case sub judi…
-
In re Weinstein, 518 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…qualification of a judge, the power to punish for contempts exists where there is such uncalled for acts or wrongful conduct as amounts to an actual and direct obstruction to, or interference with the administration of justice, * * State v. Peacock, 113 Fla. 816, text 817, 152 So. 616, 617. “Judicial wisdom and the experiences of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to courts to punish for contempts be not used except to prevent actual and direct obstruction of, or interference…1 / 2
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
- Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. Freeland, 103 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1931)
- Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1932)
- Baumgartner v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 858 (Fla. 1932)