Vandenberghe v. Poole, 163 So.2d 51 (1964)
163 So.2d 51
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
George G. VANDENBERGHE, Julian
Vandenberghe and Jules Vandenberghe,
Appellants,
v.
Samuel E. POOLE, Jr., Appellee.
No. 3958. | March 4, 1964. | Petition for Rehearing
Stricken April 3, 1964.
Proceeding on petition for rehearing. The District Court
of Appeal struck petition because of contemptuous and
impudent language used in petition.
*51 Harry M. Hobbs, of Hobbs, de la Parte & Whigham,
Tampa, for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., and RAWLS,
JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.
Petition for rehearing stricken.
ORDER STRIKING PETITION FOR REHEARING.
West Headnotes (2)
[1]
Attorney and Client
Dignity, Decorum, and Courtesy; Criticism
of Courts
PER CURIAM.
We have considered the Petition for Rehearing filed by
counsel for the appellants in this case and are ordering
said Petition stricken because of the contemptuous and
impudent langauge used in said Petition.
[1] [2]
It is not part of attorney’s duties to his clients to
use language in his petition for rehearing, or in
any other papers filed in District Court of
Appeal, that is actually insulting to members of
panel which heard case.
This court has probably been too lenient in the past
in not striking other Petitions for Rehearing for the same
reasons set forth above. It is not a part of an attorney’s
duties to his clients to use language in his Petition for
Rehearing, or in any other papers filed in this court, that is
actually insulting to the members of the panel which
heard the case.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Clerk strike the Petition
for Rehearing in this case from the files of the court.
[2]
Appeal and Error
Petition or Motion and Briefs
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Petition for rehearing would be stricken because
of contemptuous and impudent language used in
petition.
RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concurs specially.
RAWLS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, (concurring
specially).
Attorneys and Law Firms
Appellant’s attorney predicated his petition for rehearing
with the following statement:
‘This Appellate Court has either
ignored the law or is not interested in
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
Vandenberghe v. Poole, 163 So.2d 51 (1964)
determining the law.’
The majority of this Court has found such language
contemptuous. I agree. It is the lack of action being taken
against the offending attorney that I question.
A member of The Florida Bar well knows the impropriety
of directing such language to courts of this State. I am
quite certain that at times individual members *52 of the
Bar have harbored such sentiments as here expressed;
however, I am amazed to find an officer of the Court
expressing such sentiments in a pleading. To use a
colloquialism, ‘You can think it, but you better not say it.’
End of Document
I am fearful that the mere striking of such a pleading will
only serve to encourage others to give vent to their
emotions, rather than to dispassionately plead their cases.
To be in contempt of a court of this State is a serious
offense on the part of an attorney. I would issue a rule
nisidirected to Harry M. Hobbs, Esquire, to appear before
this Court on a day and a time certain and show cause
why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court
and punished accordingly.
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2