IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE HALE R. STANCIL
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission initiated this proceeding accusing County Judge Hale R. Stancil of a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission filed with this Court its finding of a violation and a recommendation of a public reprimand. We issued an order to Judge Stan-cil to show cause why the recommendation should not be followed. He filed his response to the order to show cause. Now the Commission has filed a reply to Judge Stancil’s response, withdrawing its previous recommendation of a public reprimand.
The Commission having withdrawn its recommendation of a public reprimand, we find, based on the lack of clear and convincing evidence, that Judge Stancil is not guilty of the charged violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This proceeding on judicial conduct is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1987)…rast, chapter 768 concerns negligence law. The majority opinion asserts that our prior pronouncements concerning the effect of section 768.125 in Migliore v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1984), and Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1984), require us to limit liability to tavern owners who serve alcoholic beverages to minors. In Migliore, we discussed and approved of our prior holding in Davis v. Shiappacossee, 155 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1963), that the minor to whom a vendor il…1 / 2
-
Ellis v. N.G.N. OF Tampa, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1991)…of vendors of intoxicating beverages,” and that “the legislative intent that this statute limit the existing liability of liquor vendors is clear from its enacting title.” Id. at 980-81. This Court faced similar issues in Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1984), and Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1984). In those cases, we reaffirmed our holding in Migliore that the statute constituted a limitation on the existing liability of vendors. [*1047] In Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1…
-
Kitchen v. K-Mart Corp., 697 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1997)…purchaser’s incompetency as an incidental by-product of the normal sales routine." Id. at 262. . See Davis v. Shiappacossee, 155 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1963); Prevatt v. McClennan, 201 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). . (Citing Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1984), and Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla.1984)). . Section 790.17, Florida Statutes (1987), which was in effect at the time of the incident, states: Whoever sells, hires, barters, lends, or gives any minor under 18 years of…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence