STATE EX REL. FRANK M. HAMILTON, PETITIONER,
v.
WORTH W. TRAMMELL, ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, 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 quashed a rule nisi in prohibition, holding that a circuit court has the power to find a party in contempt, even if that finding is erroneous and subject to review by habeas corpus. The court found that prohibition was not the proper remedy to challenge the contempt order itself.
Yes, a circuit court has the power and jurisdiction to adjudge parties before it to be in contempt, regardless of whether the order is erroneous.
“The circuit court has the power and jurisdiction to adjudge parties before the court to be in contempt of court and may exercise that power either erroneously or properly subject to review in the appellate court on habeas corpus.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the circuit court had the inherent power to issue a contempt order, even if that order was ultimately incorrect.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court ordered a respondent to produce an infant in habeas corpus proceedings. The infant was not in the respondent's custody and had been …
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 Habeas Corpus Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on return to rule nisi in prohibition proceedings.
It appeárs that in habéas corpus proceedings the circuit court ordered the respondent there to produce the body of an infant Eleanor Jean Hamilton before the court. The record shows that the infant was not in the custody of respondent and was not within the jurisdiction of State Courts of Florida and has not been within such jurisdiction since the year 1937; that since 1937 the said infant has been in the State of Michigan in the custody of Mr. and Mrs. V. F. Dewey and beyond the control of the respondent.
Regardless of this showing, the circuit court has entered a judgment holding the respondent to be in contempt of court for failure to produce the body of the said infant.
The judgment, supra, is reviewable on habeas corpus proceedings but may not be reached in this proceeding.
The circuit court has the power and jurisdiction to adjudge parties before the court to be in contempt of court and may exercise that power either erroneously or properly subject to review in the appellate court on habeas corpus. See Ex Parte Peaden, 88 Fla. 273, 102 Sou. 160; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 Sou. 813; Ex Parte Turner, 73 Fla. 360, 74 Sou. 314; Ex Parte Bostwick, 102 Fla. 995, 136 Sou. 669; Ex Parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 Sou. 755, 31 A. L. R. 1226.
It, therefore, follows that the rule nisi issued here must be quashed.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sheppard, 22 Fla. Supp. 159 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)…tion of the adequate remedies which rest with the relators by virtue of their right of appeal, State, ex rel. B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500, 192 So. 175 (1939), and the right to take habeas corpus, State, ex rel. Hamilton v. Trammell, 146 Fla. 10, 200 So. 82 (1941). It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the petition for a writ of prohibition be denied and dismissed, and the alternative writ directed to the respondents, Hon. Ben J. Sheppard and Elizabeth Dunn, be and the same is hereby q…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1923)
- Hazen v. Frank A. Smith as Judge of the Cir. Court of the Seventeenth Jud. Cir. of the State of Fla., 101 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1931)
- Ex parte Turner, 73 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1917)
- Ex Parte: Marcus R. Bostwick, 102 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1931)
- Ex parte Peaden, 88 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1924)