STATE, EX REL. W. E. BRYAN
v.
HON. PAUL C. ALBRITTON, AS CIRCUIT JUDGE
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 Florida Supreme Court case addressing judicial disqualification where a circuit judge refused to recuse himself based on an application claiming bias and prejudice. The court upheld the judge's refusal to recuse, holding that while judges must determine the legal sufficiency of disqualification applications, a permanent writ of prohibition will not issue unless the disqualifying causes clearly appear as a matter of law.
The court held that a permanent writ of prohibition will not issue unless it clearly appears as a matter of law that the disqualifying causes contemplated by statute exist. While a circuit judge must determine the legal sufficiency of disqualification applications, the court will not grant prohibition where, upon fair consideration of the allegations, the disqualifying causes do not clearly appear as a matter of law.
“Where an application to disqualify a circuit judge on account of prejudice is filed under Section 4341, C. G. L., 2674, R. G. S., it is not only within the power of such circuit judge to determine its legal sufficiency to invoke the duty of recusation prescribed by statute, but it is his duty to do so under the law.”
Establishes the judge's duty to determine legal sufficiency of disqualification applications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator Bryan filed an application to disqualify Circuit Judge Albritton under statutory provisions claiming bias and prejudice. Judge Albritton r…
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.
— This is an original prohibition proceeding brought against the Honorable Paul C. Albritton, as Judge of the Twenty-seventh Judicial Circuit, to restrain judicial action by him in a certain chancery cause on the ground of bias' and prejudice against petitioner. The basis for the writ of prohibition absolute sought in this case was heretofore set forth by this Court in its opinion in the case of State, ex rel. Bryan v. Albritton, 111 Fla. 142, 149 Sou. Rep. 60, this being the original proceeding referred to in that opinion. The present case is' before us on the relator’s suggestion for the writ of prohibition, the rule nisi issued by this Court thereon and the respondent judge’s return which in effect controverts the alleged disqualification set up in relator’s suggestion.
Where an application to disqualify a circuit judge on account of prejudice is filed under Section 4341, C. G. L., 2674, R. G. S., it is not only within the power of such circuit judge to determine its legal sufficiency to invoke the duty of recusation prescribed by statute, but it is his duty to do so under the law. And while no power is vested in such judge to hear and determine the truth of any of the alleged facts, nor to attempt to adjudicate anything more than the bare legal sufficiency of the application for disqualification as a matter of law, as .was held by this Court in Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 Sou. Rep. 459, yet where the challenged judge has made an order finding the application legally insufficient to require that he recuse himself, this Court will refuse the drastic remedy of a permanent writ of prohibition where, upon a fair consideration ■of the legal effect of the allegations set up to show the alleged disqualification of the judge on account of prejudice, it does' not clearly appear that the alleged disqualifying causes contemplated by statute exist as a matter' of law *727considering the legal effect of the substantial allegations of the petition as a whole.
The law imposes on a circuit judge the duty to hear and determine all cases properly brought before him for his judicial consideration. This duty he must perform whether he wishes to do so or not, unless he be either disqualified as a matter of law, or be challenged and required to recuse himself under circumstances existing that require him as a matter of law to retire from the case, or he, himself, shall make it a matter of record and certify that he is personally conscious of and feels toward one of the parties such disqualifying bias' or prejudice as will in good conscience preclude his impartial consideration of the controversy.
It does not appear in the present case that the judge’s refusal to retire from consideration of the case to which this proceeding in prohibition relates was in clear violation of Section 4341, C. G. L., 2674, R. G. S.; therefore, the return of the respondent circuit judge must be sustained, the writ of prohibition absolute denied and this proceeding dismissed, and it is So ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Butler, 172 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ar that the chancellor did not consider himself disqualified. No ground for disqualification appears on the record, and no disqualification order was filed in the cause. See Roberts v. State, 27 Fla. 244, 9 So. 246; State ex rel. Bryan v. Albritton, 114 Fla. 725, 154 So. 830-831. The chancellor considered the various motions on their merits and made further rulings in the case. Moreover, if the chancellor had considered himself disqualified and for that reason had concluded his judgment entered on May 28 wa…
-
City of Palatka v. Frederick, 128 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1937)…5 U. S. 22, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 230, 65 L. Ed. 481. In the Suarez case, supra, it was held that mere [*373] adverse ruling by the Judge constituted no basis for "the allegation that he was prejudiced. In the case of State, ex rel. Bryan, v. Albritton, 114 Fla. 725, 154 South. Rep. 830, we held as follows: “Where an application to disqualify a circuit judge on account of prejudice is filed under Section 4341, C. G. L., 2674 R. G. S., it is not only within the power of such circuit judge to determine its legal…
-
Douglas v. Peebles, 291 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…underlying mortgage foreclosure action on ground of the respondent’s alleged disqualification. The suggestion fails to make out a prima facie case showing that the respondent is disqualified as a matter of law. See State ex rel. Bryan v. Albritton, 114 Fla. 725, 154 So. 830. It affirmatively appears that the relator has not followed the statutory procedure for disqualification, which is prescribed in Chapter 38, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. One of the grounds for disqualification asserted by relator appears t…
Authorities Cited
- Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)
- State ex rel. W. E. Bryan v. Albritton, 111 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1933)