ANNETTE INGRAM, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Mandamus relief is denied because the trial court did not err in granting the motion to recuse.
Petitioner sought mandamus relief after the trial court granted respondent's motion to recuse the judge. Petitioner argued the motion was untimely and…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Annette Ingram [“Ingram”], seeks mandamus relief to review an order of the circuit court granting the respondent, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.’s [“Coca-Cola”], motion to recuse the trial judge. Ingram contends that Coca-Cola’s motion for recusal was untimely and legally insufficient.
Mandamus will lie to correct a recusal based upon a mistaken decision that the recusal affidavit was legally sufficient and timely filed. See May Invs., Inc. v. Lisa S.A., 814 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dade County v. Turnbull, 572 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also State ex rel. Rembrandt Corp. v. Thomas, 117 Fla. 127, 157 So. 337 (1934).
We find no error in the trial judge’s implicit determination that the motion was legally sufficient. Nor will we disturb the trial judge’s recusal decision based on untimeliness. The motion was barely late, the explanation was reasonable and deference should be given to a trial judge’s decision not to preside over a case.
PETITION DENIED.
COBB, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamonica Brown v. State, 885 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…, or if he concluded that there might be an appearance of impropriety, then his disclosure and recusal was appropriate. Deference should be given to the decision of a trial judge not to preside over a case. See Ingram v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 823 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Once the judge concluded that he should voluntarily recuse himself from the case, vacating his earlier order, while perhaps not required, was certainly within his discretion. PETITION DENIED. SAWAYA, C.J., and SHARP, W., J., c…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Elwyn Thomas, 117 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1934)
- Dade Cnty. v. The Honorable Dan F. Turnbull, 572 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- MAY Invs., Inc. v. Lisa, S.A., 814 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)