LEONARD JAY LEVINE, PETITIONER,
v.
ELAINE LOUISE CROSBY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court declined to issue a writ of prohibition because the matter became moot when the trial judge recused himself. The court also declined to review the order denying a motion to strike an ex parte letter, finding it not immediately appealable.
Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition regarding a case before a trial judge. During the pendency of the petition, the trial judge recused himself fr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before the court upon a petition for writ of prohibition. We decline to issue the writ because both parties have informed us that the respondent trial judge has recused himself from the case.1 Thus the matter is moot.
We decline to review the order denying a motion to strike an ex parte letter written by a witness to the judge. That letter and the witness can be either disregarded by the new trial judge, or petitioner can cross-examine, attempt to impeach or otherwise deal with the communication within the rules of evidence and civil trial procedure when this matter is considered at final hearing. Should petitioner still feel ag grieved he may then appeal any adverse rulings by way of plenary appeal.
WRIT DENIED.
SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, improperly, so we treat this as a petition for writ of prohibition; we have accepted the case under the style placed on the petition and see no need to correct the styling to show the name of the trial judge, the true respondent.