Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Contempt of J.A.P. (ohioctapp, 2022-03-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Contempt of J.A.P.
Ohio Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Assn., 61 Ohio St.2d 290, 294 , 401 N.E.2d 440 (1980), quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 341 , 70 S.Ct. 724 , 94 L.Ed. 884 (1950); and Wright v. Wright, 331 So.2d 395, 395 (Fla. App.1976).
cited Cited "see" Ragosta v. Ragosta
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. Wright, 331 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dolberg v. Sinkoff
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Nel son v. Nelson, 491 So.2d 618, 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (where the court stated that the trial court “improperly ... [directed] incarceration for failure to comply with a requirement to pay in the future, rather than to compel compliance with previously fixed obligations respecting which the husband was in default”) (citation omitted); see also Wright v. Wright, 331 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (where this Court stated “an adjudication of contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct.”) Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to this issue for proceedings consist…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Simpson L. WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
Carol T. WRIGHT, Appellee.
75-1273.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 30, 1976.
331 So. 2d 395
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

S. Robert Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered appellant's brief and appendix and find that paragraph 3 of the order of June 13, 1975, is erroneous because it purports to find appellant in contempt for failure to make payments due in the future. It may be when the time comes for these payments to be made appellant will be financially unable to do so without being contemptuous. In other words, an adjudication of contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct.

However, except for paragraph 3, the order is proper. We therefore direct that the order appealed from be modified by deleting paragraph 3 therefrom.

Affirmed as modified.

WALDEN, C.J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.