KAREN HAAS, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT DAVIS AND EILEEN DAVIS, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from an order denying her verified motion to recuse the trial judge. In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification, the test is “whether ‘the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). While the alleged comments made by the trial judge may not have been intended to reflect on his beliefs as to the merits of the underlying claims, “the standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the subjective intent of the judge.” Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Brofman, 703 So.2d at 1192). We agree with the petitioner that the alleged comments could reasonably have caused her to “fear that she would not receive a fair trial.”
We grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand for assignment to a different judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LAW Offs. OF Herssein & Herssein, P.A. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 229 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…) (quoting Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). Our review of the facts focuses on “the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not' the subjective intent of the judge.” Haas v. Davis, 37 So. 3d 983, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). . The issue in this case is therefore whether, a reasonably prudent person would fear that he or. she could not get a fair and impartial t…
-
Casner v. Fury Mgmt., Inc., 324 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
Azrack v. McDonald (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ial or hearing. See Casner v. Fury Mgmt., Inc., 324 So. 3d 1029, 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “[T]he standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the subjective intent of the judge.” Id. at 1030 (quoting Haas v. Davis, 37 So. 3d 983, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)). We take no position on the allegations other than to acknowledge them as true for purposes of ruling on this petition. And a trial judge’s determination similarly extends no further than to do the same. Given this stand…
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
- Hayslip v. The Honorable Paul T. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- J.M. v. State, 789 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)