J. B. PAULING
v.
CLAUDE SIMMONS, SHERIFF
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.
This habeas corpus case concerns the legality of an imprisonment order for contempt. The petitioner failed to file a brief supporting his discharge, leading the court to dismiss the proceedings.
Yes, when a petitioner fails to brief their habeas corpus case, and the officer's return does not clearly show unlawful imprisonment, the Supreme Court will dismiss the proceedings.
“Whereupon a short and cursory examination of the officer's return in a habeas corpus case which petitioner has failed or refused to brief in support of a motion for his' discharge, it does not clearly appear that the imprisonment complained of is unlawful or unauthorized byi the authority for detention exhibited in the return, the Supreme Court will dismiss the proceedings at the cost of the petitioner and will remand him to the custody- from which he came.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for dismissal based on the petitioner's failure to brief the case.
The petitioner sought release via habeas corpus, challenging an imprisonment order for contempt of the County Court of Okeechobee County. The petition…
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 Failure To File Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a habeas corpus case brought to determine the legality of an order of imprisonment entered against petitioner for an alleged contempt committed against the County Court of Okeechobee County. Petitioner has failed to file brief herein although notified by the clerk that a brief was desired by the Court.
Whereupon a short and cursory examination of the officer’s return in a habeas corpus case which petitioner has failed or refused to brief in support of a motion for his' discharge, it does not clearly appear that the imprisonment complained of is unlawful or unauthorized byi the authority for detention exhibited in the return, the Supreme Court will dismiss the proceedings at the cost of the petitioner and will remand him to the custody- from which he came.
Dismissed and prisoner remanded.
DaVis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnes v. Liebig, 146 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1941)…clopedia of Corporations 8388, Sec. 4750. See also Polk County Lumber Co. v. Dwiggins, 100 Fla. 559, 129 So. 859; E. O. Roper, Inc., v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., 116 Fla. 796, 156 So. 883; Mallory S. S. Co. v. Baker & Holmes Co., 117 Fla. 196, 157 So. 504. Under these rules of law, it would appear that the allegation of the liability of the absorbing corporation for the tort of the constituent corporation is sufficient to require defendants to assert their defense on the merits. The fourth and fina…
-
Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…f distribution of tires manufactured in Belgium and, in effect, held itself out as the manufacturer of the foreign-made tires. Affirmed. . GmbH v. Kinsler, 377 So. 2d 182 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). . Mallory S. S. Co. v. Baker & Holmes Co., 117 Fla. 196, 157 So. 504 (1934). . Rohm GmbH’s insurance carrier was also joined as a co-defendant in this action. . In Ray v. Alad Corporation, supra, the following conditions precedent must generally exist in order to impose the liability of a predecessor corporation up…
-
Kelly v. Am. Precision Indus., Inc., 438 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…h the reasoning of a number of prior Florida Supreme Court cases: see, e.g., Levenstein v. Sapiro, 279 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1973); Advertects, Inc. v. Sawyer Industries, Inc., 84 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1955); Mallory S.S. Co. v. Baker & Holmes Co., 117 Fla. 196, 157 So. 504 (1934); Beach v. Williamson, 78 Fla. 611, 83 So. 860 (1920). In the instant case, the three elements of the Unijax test are met, and TEC can be seen as a “mere instrumentality” of API, allowing for liability to lie against API. The summary judgmen…