Lee v. Bauer
| Decision Date | 21 May 1954 |
| Citation | 72 So.2d 792 |
| Parties | LEE et al. v. BAUER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William J. Pruitt, Miami, for petitioner.
Wicker, Brown & Smith, Miami, for respondent.
Petitioner brought an action against respondent to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Issue was joined, the case was set for trial and the Court called a pretrial conference, his order therefor containing the following notice:
'That the purpose of the conference may be accomplished it is requested that each party be represented by the attorney who expects to conduct the trial of the case and that such attorney be vested with full authority to make disclosures of facts, * * *.'
In compliance with said order, petitioner, the attorney of record for the plaintiff, being unable to appear in person, sent an attorney from his office to represent him at the pretrial conference. Because of failure of the attorney of record to attend the court entered an 'order imposing sanctions for failure to attend pretrial conference,' the pertinent part of which is as follows 'For the reasons stated Mr. Pruitt is required to pay, within three days after the entry of this order, to the clerk of this court, a fine of $25 which, when paid, shall be deposited by the clerk in the fine and for feiture fund of Dade County, Florida; and such attorney is further required to pay, within three days after the entry of this order, to the clerk of this court, for the use and benefit of the mentioned reporter, an attendance fee of $10.
'Should the penalties imposed by this order not be paid within the time prescribed, this action will be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff Louis M. Lee.
'Ordered in chambers (on the Court's own initiative)
'January 26, 1954 by
'Vincent C. Giblin Circuit Judge'
In obedience to said order petitioner filed his response attached to which was the sum of $35, which was paid under protest in order that the case be not dismissed and to avoid the necessity of posting a supersedeas bond on condition of appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to the date set for trial the matter was settled by the parties and the cause was dismissed. The petitioner being of the opinion that he should have been given an opportunity to defend himself against the court's order under rule to show cause before imposition of said fine brought this appeal by certiorari to review the order of the trial court.
The point for determination is whether or not a trial court may adjudge counsel in contempt and impose a fine on him for failure to abide the court's order for pretrial conference, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yengo, Matter of
...requires reference to facts not immediately within the court's perception. Among the state courts, see, e. g., Lee v. Bauer, 72 So.2d 792 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1954) (attorney who sent substitute to pretrial conference should have had an opportunity to explain his reasons for not attending persona......
-
Chula v. Superior Court In and For Orange County
...be adjudicated only after adequate notice and hearing. (Klein v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 151 F.2d 286, 288; Lee v. Bauer, 72 So.2d 792, 793 (Fla.Sup.Ct.); In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 146, 149, 106 S.W. 990, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 389; Weiland v. Ind. Com. of Ohio, 166 Ohio St. 62, 66, 13......
-
In re Lamson
... ... Willett, 432 F.2d 202 (4th Cir. 1970). We count also at least ten states with a similar approach. Missouri, In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 S.W. 990 (1907); Illinois, People v. Westbrooks, 242 Ill.App. 338 (1926); Washington, State v. Winthrop, 148 Wash. 526, 269 P. 793 (1928); Florida, Lee v. Bauer, 72 So.2d 792 (1954); Ohio, Weiland v. Industrial Comm., 166 Ohio St. 62, 139 N.E.2d 36 (1956); Texas, Ex parte Hill, 122 Tex. 80, 52 S.W.2d 367 (1932); Arizona, Rogers v. Superior Court, etc., of Pima, 2 Ariz.App. 556, 410 P.2d 674 (1966); Colorado, District Attorney of Alamosa County v. District ... ...
- State v. Diaz De La Portilla