STEWART PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A judge's impartiality is not warranted to be questioned based on a remote possibility of a campaign contribution by the judge's spouse to the opposing candidate.
Petitioner, a criminal defendant, sought to disqualify the presiding judge, alleging his attorney was a judicial candidate and the judge's husband mig…
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 Campaign Contributions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of prohibition seeking to disqualify the presiding judge. We deny the petition on the merits.
Petitioner is the defendant in a criminal case. His attorney is currently a candidate for circuit court judge. Petitioner alleged his belief that the presiding judge’s husband has made a campaign contribution to petitioner’s counsel’s opponent in the judicial race. Petitioner speculates that the donor is in fact the judge’s husband. Petitioner alleges that based on that campaign contribution he fears that that the presiding judge will not treat him fairly or impartially.
We hold that petitioner’s “belief’ of a donation, or even an actual donation, by the spouse of a sitting judge is too remote to warrant disqualification in this case. Compare Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. Robinson, 829 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Cherradi v. Andrews, 669 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition.
STONE, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Premier LAB Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Indus., Inc., 10 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…2d DCA 2006); Indus. Waste Servs., Inc. v. Faircloth Sanitation, Inc., 643 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Based on the clear wording of the rule, the specificity requirement applies to both temporary and permanent injunctions. See Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reclassifying a temporary injunction as a permanent injunction and reversing it because its form was deficient under the governing rule and statute). We affirm denial of the motions for direct verdict and judgment notwithst…
-
Kirkland v. Peoplessouth Bank, 70 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ude specific reasons for issuing an injunction, the reviewing court must reverse. See id. (reversing a permanent injunction order and remanding for court to enter order specifying the reasons for entry, pursuant to rule 1.610(c)); Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149, 152-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing order of injunction because its form was deficient under rule 1.610(c)). Here, the trial court’s order granting a permanent injunction consists of a single finding, specifically that “Seven Mile and the public…
-
City OF Miami v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Bank, 163 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…v. Chemplex Indus., Inc., 10 So. 3d 202, 206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing a permanent injunction order and remanding the case for the trial court to enter an order specifying the reasons for entry, pursuant to rule 1.610(c)); Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149, 152-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing an injunction order because its form was deficient, pursuant to rule 1.610(c)). Furthermore, there is no record support for the injunction that prevents the City’s exercise of its right to demolish the property…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.H. v. State, 829 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Soulaymane Cherradi v. The Honorable Robert Lance Andrews, 669 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)