MCGREGOR
v.
HAMMOCK
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order denying a motion to disqualify a chancellor, holding that alleged anger and refusal to allow a party to speak during a hearing, even if followed by an apology, does not constitute prejudice sufficient for disqualification.
No, such allegations do not constitute grounds for disqualification due to prejudice, as it would divest the court of its power to maintain order and proper respect.
[1] A trial judge's isolated display of anger during a hearing, even if acknowledged as hasty, does not constitute grounds for disqualification based on prejudice, as allowin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“That during the month of November A.D. 1929, at a hearing of this cause in his Chambers at Daytona Beach, the said Hon. M. G. Rowe became incensed at affiant and refused to allow affiant to speak under penalty of imprisonment; that although the said Hon. M. G. Rowe afterwards stated to affiant that he (Hon. M. G. Rowe) had perhaps been hasty in his acts on that occasion, nevertheless, affiant realizes and believes that a re-occurrence of said anger would materially interfere with affiant's rights in the trial of this cause.”
The factual basis alleged in the motion for disqualification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA party moved to disqualify the chancellor, alleging that during a hearing, the chancellor became incensed, refused to allow the party to speak under …
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 Motion To Disqualify Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on appeal from an order of the chancellor denying a motion of disqualification. *Page 1171
There was a motion filed suggesting the disqualification of the chancellor. The facts alleged in the motion are insufficient to constitute ground for disqualification under the terms of the statute on account of prejudice. The facts alleged as a basis for the belief that prejudice exists are:
"That during the month of November A.D. 1929, at a hearing of this cause in his Chambers at Daytona Beach, the said Hon. M. G. Rowe became incensed at affiant and refused to allow affiant to speak under penalty of imprisonment; that although the said Hon. M. G. Rowe afterwards stated to affiant that he (Hon. M. G. Rowe) had perhaps been hasty in his acts on that occasion, nevertheless, affiant realizes and believes that a re-occurrence of said anger would materially interfere with affiant's rights in the trial of this cause."
To hold that the existence of such facts would constitute grounds for disqualifying a trial judge on account of prejudice would divest the court of the power to maintain order and proper respect for the court. It should be said, however, that a judge should decline to officiate in a case where the judge is conscious of any bias or prejudice which might influence his official action against any party to the litigation, whether challenged or not. Judicial ermine should be zealously guarded, that it may not become the object of scorn nor warrant suspicion.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
BUFORD, C.J., AND WHITFIELD, ELLIS, BROWN AND DAVIS, J.J., concur. TERRELL, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)…ce.” Power vs. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1030, 113 So. 280; State vs. Chillingworth, 93 Fla. 1107, 113 So. 563; State ex rel. First American Bank and Trust Co. vs. Chillingworth, 95 Fla. 699, 116 So. 633; Suarez vs. State, supra; McGregor vs. Hammock, 101 Fla. 1170, 132 So. 815. It follows that' the writ of prohibition should issue from this Court prohibiting Judge L. L. Parks from exercising jurisdiction in or making any order or decree in the suit of Hillsborough County vs. W. A. Dickenson, Julia I. Dickens…
-
Finney P. Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1947)…ionships which often comprehend some similar facts. 6 Am. Jur. Sections 56 and 58, pages 184, 187. The doctrine of respondeat superior is one of implied agency by reason of the relationship of “master and servant.’” In Herr v. Butler 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815, and in Engleman v. Treager 102 Fla. 756,136 So. 527, the tort-feasor was a gratuitous bailee of an automobile and the bailor was held liable for a tort committed by the bailee by means of such automobile. In Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co., Inc. v. Har…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1964)…it to his “independent contractor” is not liable as a matter of law to the contractor or to the latter’s employee for injuries received by either of them arising from the negligent operation of the automobile by either of them under Herr v. Butler, 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815 (1931); May v. Palm Beach Chemical Company, 77 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1955), or Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1959). It may well be that said doctrines (dangerous instrumentality and inherently dangerous w…
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence