State ex rel. Buckner v. Culbreath
| Decision Date | 27 June 1941 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BUCKNER et al. v. CULBREATH, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 16, 1941.
En Banc.
McKay, Macfarlane, Jackson & Ferguson, of Tampa, for plaintiffs in error.
C. J Hardee, of Tampa, for defendant in error.
After hearing the evidence of the respective parties in a suit for injunction instituted by the Florida State Board of Optometry against persons who have now become the plaintiffs in error in this case, the chancellor entered an order restraining the defendants from engaging in the practice of optometry or in any wise violating Chapter 19031, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1939, and specifying, in the language of that part of the statute defining such practice, the acts which were enjoined. A few months later the successful litigant represented to the court that the injunctive order had been violated and in its petition detailed certain acts committed by the defendants which were alleged to have violated provisions of the decree. Upon an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt of court, returns were filed and testimony was taken, whereupon the chancellor found the defendants in contempt of court and fined them ten dollars and upon failure to pay the fine, sentenced them to the county jail for a period of one day.
The defendants then obtained a writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff of the county who filed a return stating that he had the defendants in his custody under the commitment for contempt. After a hearing on the writ and return, the circuit judge remanded the petitioners to the custody of the sheriff and it is by an appeal from that order that the matter reaches this court.
The questions which the original defendants in the chancery suit, petitioners in the habeas corpus proceeding and now plaintiffs in error present to us for determination, deal with the sufficiency of the facts to show that their activities constituted the practice of optometry as defined by Chapter 19031, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1939. The record does not disclose precisely what conduct of the defendants was originally held to constitute the practice of optometry and we cannot therefore discern whether the acts performed subsequent to the issuance of the injunction were identical with those enjoined, and no presumption in this regard is indulged in favor of the petitioners for writ of habeas corpus. Therefore the matters sought to be decided are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandstrom v. State
...1059, 1107. See too, Seaboard Airline Ry. Co., v. Tampa Southern R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529 (1931); State ex rel. Buckner v. Culbreath, 147 Fla. 560, 3 So.2d 380 (1941); Friedman v. Friedman, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 424; United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, ......
-
Vizzi v. State
...(appellant's failure to obey injunction found to be erroneous as overbroad, punishable by contempt). See also State ex rel. Buckner v. Culbreath, 147 Fla. 560, 3 So.2d 380 (1941); State ex rel. Pearson v. Johnson, 334 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Friedman v. Friedman, 224 So.2d 424 (Fla. 3......
-
Dade County Classroom Teachers' Ass'n v. Rubin
...Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529 (1931); State ex rel. Everette v. Petteway, 131 Fla. 516, 179 So. 666 (1938); State ex rel. Buckner v. Culbreath, 147 Fla. 560, 3 So.2d 380 (1941); 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 224, p. Under these authorities and these circumstances the Association has no standing ......
-
Wilson v. Sandstrom
...against the authority and dignity of a court or a judicial officer in the performance of judicial functions. State ex rel. Buckner v. Culbreath, 147 Fla. 560, 3 So.2d 380 (1941). The sole reason for the incarceration of the kennel owners was their willful failure to comply with the temporar......