DONALD DIEBERT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision in a contempt proceeding, finding that a judge could not issue a rule to show cause based solely on a tape recording of conversations involving individuals not brought before the court. While the court agreed with the lower court's holding, it found the certified question to be imprecisely worded.
The court affirmed the District Court of Appeal's holding, implying that a rule to show cause cannot be based solely on a tape recording of conversations involving individuals not present before the court. However, the court found the certified question itself was not precise enough to directly answer.
“It is our opinion the District Court's holding on rehearing correctly decides the case and we approve the same.”
This quote establishes the Florida Supreme Court's agreement with the lower appellate court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judge issued a rule to show cause in an indirect contempt proceeding. This rule was based solely on a tape recording of conversations between indivi…
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 Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, 199 So.2d 288, certified its decision filed February 14, 1967 as one passing upon a question of great public interest. It stated the certified question as follows:
“Whether a judge may issue a rule to show cause in an indirect contempt pro*727ceeding based solely on a tape recording of conversations between persons who were not brought before the court?”
We have considered the question, studied the briefs and heard oral argument. It is our opinion the District Court’s holding on rehearing correctly ■ decides the case and we approve the same. Our decision herein is not to be understood as an answer to the specific question certified, inasmuch as we find the question does not track close enough to the factual situation or legal problem involved in the case. Nevertheless, we do find that the District Court’s holding on rehearing correctly decides the case.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simon v. Kelly, 199 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Diebert v. State, 199 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)