BETTY J. MINOR, PETITIONER,
v.
BASIL F. MINOR, 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.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions do not alter the prior conclusion that a plaintiff in a divorce action cannot refuse to answer questions regarding adultery on Fifth Amendment grounds and still prosecute the action.
A wife in a divorce action refused to answer deposition questions regarding her husband's counterclaim of adultery, invoking the Fifth Amendment. 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 Protection Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review by writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District,1 affirming a trial court order that compels the plaintiff wife in a divorce action to answer over objections invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination certain pretrial deposition questions relating to the husband’s counterclaim of adultery, or suffer dismissal of her complaint. The decision’s direct conflict with Simkins v. Simkins2 from the Third District Court of Appeal lodges jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.
The district court relies upon our decision in Stockham v. Stockham 3, in which we held that a plaintiff in a divorce action should not be permitted to further prosecute her action upon refusal to answer certain requests for admissions related to an affirmative defense of adultery. The majority of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reached an opposite conclusion in Simkins v. Simkins, supra, by relying upon Spevack v. Klein 4 and Garrity v. New Jersey5, two United States Supreme Court decisions handed down three years after rendition of Stockham by this Court.
We have carefully reviewed Spevack and Garrity, and other related cases for possible impact upon the precise issue now before the Court. We agree with the analysis of a majority of the district court that subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions do not require alteration of our previously expressed conclusion.
We adhere to our earlier decision in Stockham, disapprove the result reached in Simkins v. Simkins, supra, and approve the decision of the district court below.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Vill. INN Rest. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…me Court decisions which, as the dissent points out, involved parties who were summoned to appear and who were not before the respective tribunals voluntarily. The Florida Supreme Court addressed the Stockham and Simkins decisions in Minor v. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1970), and adhered to the Stockham decision and disapproved the result reached in Simkins. The Minor Court reviewed the United States Supreme Court decisions relied upon in Simkins and held that they did not require alteration of the Stockham d…
-
City OF ST. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…te the holding of our Supreme Court in Stockham, supra, . . . ” Page 747. Upon review by the Florida Supreme Court by writ of certiorari of our decision in Minor, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Minor and disapproved Simkins. See Minor v. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (1970). In Mahne v. Mahne, 124 N.J.Super. 23, 304 A. 2d 577 (1973), the court cited, inter alia, both the Minor and Stockham cases. Adopting the views supported by the two Florida cases, the court quoted from Christenson v. Christenson, 281 Minn. 5…
-
PRO v. PRO, 300 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…inquiry was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and it was error not to require the husband either to answer the question as framed or to suffer sanctions. Stockham v. Stockham, Fla. 1964, 168 So. 2d 320; Minor v. Minor, Fla. 1970, 240 So. 2d 301. We are not unmindful of the decision of Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 77, which affirmed the trial judge’s holding that he had the discretion not to consider the issue of adultery as it might affect the award of alimony unde…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1967)
- Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1967)
- Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1964)
- Simkins v. Luisa Victoria Simkins, 219 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Minor v. Basil F. Minor, 232 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)