CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DIAMOND ON THE BEACH, INC., DIAMOND PARKING, INC., KATARINA DIJAK, STEVE DIJAK, RICHARD H. WITT AND LIZABETH KAYNE, 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.
The Fourth District granted the City of Hollywood's petition for writ of prohibition, holding that the trial judge erred in dismissing four separate disqualification motions as procedurally insufficient blanket disqualification attempts when the city properly filed individual motions in each case.
A trial court must consider each disqualification motion separately as it relates to the specific case in which it was filed and determine whether it is legally sufficient under Florida Rule 2.160(f), rather than dismissing multiple motions as an impermissible blanket disqualification.
[1] A trial court must consider each motion to disqualify a judge separately as it relates to the individual case in which it was filed, rather than dismissing multiple separ…
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 intelligenceThe City of Hollywood filed four separate motions seeking disqualification of the trial judge in four different cases. The judge denied all four motio…
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 Legal Sufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Hollywood has filed four petitions for writ of prohibition in connection with four separate cases in which it filed motions seeking the disqualification of the trial judge, who denied them all as “procedurally insufficient,” concluding that the city was impermissibly seeking “blanket disqualification.” The judge’s order cited Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla.1956); Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Fla.1983); and Cascone v. Foster, 774 So. 2d 773, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, the city did as those opinions instruct, seeking disqualification by filing a separate motion in each case in question.
We therefore grant the petition, but only to the extent of returning the four cases to the trial court to consider each motion separately as it relates to the case in which it was filed, and to determine whether that motion is “legally sufficient” within the meaning of rule 2.160(f), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. It would be inappropriate for this court to make that determination in the first instance. See Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962 (Fla.2002); Kelly v. Scussel, 167 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1964); Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Carnato, 840 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
POLEN, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hadi B. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005)…t away a future obligation to pay attorney’s fees and costs during the term of the marriage by providing for prevailing party attorney’s fees in actions seeking to enforce or prevent the breach of the prenuptial agreement?” Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 855 So. 2d 87, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We have discretionary jurisdiction and granted review. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 879 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2004) (order granting review); see art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we answer the certified q…
-
Moss v. Moss, 914 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2005)…CANTERO, J. We have for review Moss v. Moss, 901 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), which cites to and certifies the same question of great public importance as Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 855 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). This Court recently quashed Lashkajani and answered the certified question in the af…
-
City OF Hollywood v. Witt, 868 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…as “proeedurally insufficient” for improperly seeking a “blanket recusal” in all matters. The City thereafter filed four petitions for writ of prohibition, which we consolidated and granted in part. City of Hollywood v. Diamond on the Beach, Inc., 855 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There, we ruled that the City’s motions for disqualification were not proeedurally insufficient because the City properly sought disqualification by filing a separate motion in each case. We granted the petition “only to the ext…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983)
- Roberts v. State, 840 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2002)
- Ginsberg v. Holt, 86 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1956)
- Joiner v. State, 167 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1964)
- Cascone v. The Honorable Robert M. Foster, 774 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Betancourt v. State, 840 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Carnoto, 840 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)