THELMA HARRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH JEWETT AND SEA LAND SERVICE, INC., RESPONDENTS
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 District Court of Appeal reviewed a petitioner's request for a common law writ of certiorari. The court affirmed the trial court's order to produce photographs but quashed the contempt order for non-compliance due to procedural defects.
The trial court did not err in ordering the production of the photographs. However, the contempt order was improper because the initial production order did not comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regarding specificity.
“However, we quash the order adjudicating the plaintiff in contempt for failure to comply with the first order of production, because this order did not comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Establishes the reason for quashing the contempt order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, arguing the trial court erred by ordering the production of photographs at a pre-trial conference and by h…
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 Common Law Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a common law writ of certiorari,1 contending that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring the production of certain photographs at pre-trial conference, and holding the petitioner in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order to produce which did not fix the time and place for the production.
In ordering the production of the photographs, we do not find'that the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of law. See: Miami Transit Co. v. Hurns, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 390; Pierson v. Seale, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 887. However, we quash the order adjudicating the plaintiff in contempt for failure to comply with the first order of production, because this order did not comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See: Rule 1.28, F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.; Fryd Construction Corporation v. Freeman, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 487.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Elbert Quinton Yancey v. State, 267 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…d record cannot be furnished, we ask that a certificate to that effect be filed within the same period. In the latter event it will be our expectation to reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Simmons v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 200 So. 2d 619, and Bennett v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So. 2d 449. It is so ordered. OWEN, J., and BEASLEY', THOMAS D., Associate Judge, concur. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION PER CURIAM. Pursuant to our opinion in this case, the trial judge has certified to us the f…
-
Neary v. State, 285 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ht to appeal” but chose not to do so the question of the unavailability of a transcript is rendered moot. We therefore need not consider the import of the decisions in Wade v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 222 So. 2d 434, and Simmons v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 619.1 The proper method for raising the issue of deprivation of direct appeal is by a petition for habeas corpus in the district court of appeal of the district where petitioner was confined at the time of sentencing. State v. Wooden, supra; Baggett v.…
-
Jackson v. State, 308 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…adjudged that the final judgment of conviction and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby set aside, and the appellant is remanded to the trial court for the purposes of being accorded a new trial. See: Simmons v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 619; Yancey v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So. 2d 836; Fernandez v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 410; Dismukes v. State, Fla.App.1974, 299 So. 2d 133.…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Miami Transit Co. v. Hurns, 46 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1950)
- Fryd Constr. Corp. v. Freeman, 191 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Kautzman v. Bandler, 118 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- VAN Devere v. Jeanette v. Holmes, 156 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Martin v. Martin, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Pierson v. Seale, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)