White v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. State

592 So. 2d 1184, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 388, 1992 WL 5345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1992

DocketNo. 90-625

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 592 So. 2d 1184 (White v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White v. State, 592 So. 2d 1184, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 388, 1992 WL 5345 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bernice White appeals a final order finding her in contempt. The contempt proceedings stem from White’s alleged failure to abide by court orders entered in the delinquency cases of two brothers. Upon adjudicating the boys delinquent, the trial court entered a detention order for each child and noted at the bottom of each order in handwriting “HRS to Staff.” White contends that the contempt finding was improper as there was no evidence that the order which she allegedly failed to obey was directed to her, that she had notice of the underlying order or that she willfully disobeyed the order. We agree and reverse.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the notation at the bottom of the detention order at best may be considered to be an order directed to HRS. Nothing in the order or in the record indicates that White personally was ordered to do anything. Accordingly, the order finding her in contempt is reversed.

REVERSED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and PETERSON and DIAMANTES, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Bernice White appeals a final order finding her in contempt. The contempt proceedings stem from White’s alleged failure to abide by court orders entered in the delinquency cases of two brothers. Upon adjudicating the boys delinquent, the trial court entered a detention order for each child and noted at the bottom of each order in handwriting “HRS to Staff.” White contends that the contempt finding was improper as there was no evidence that the order which she allegedly failed to obey was directed to her, that she had notice of the underlying order or that she willfully disobeyed the order. We agree and reverse.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the notation at the bottom of the detention order at best may be considered to be an order directed to HRS. Nothing in the order or in the record indicates that White personally was ordered to do anything. Accordingly, the order finding her in contempt is reversed.

REVERSED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and PETERSON and DIAMANTES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 1184, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 388, 1992 WL 5345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack