Aron v. Huttoe

Decided July 26, 1972

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1972-07-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether a person who fails to appear at trial after having been properly subpoenaed may be brought into court during the trial and summarily held in contempt after failing to prove an adequate excuse.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Alex Diaz De La Portilla v. State of Florida, Kelley v. Rice

Relies on 258 So. 2d 272 - Aron v. Huttoe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-07-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Thomas v. State (1975), Kelley v. Rice (2001)

25 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 258 So.2d 272. The District Court has certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:

“Whether a person who fails to appear at trial after having been properly subpoenaed may be brought into court during the -trial and summarily held in contempt after failing to prove an adequate excuse.”

¶2After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.

¶3Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.

¶4It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., and SMITH (HAROLD S.), Circuit Judge, concur.