RICKY SWEET
v.
ALICIA MONIQUE TUCKER
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.
When a trial judge becomes aware of grounds for recusal at or before a hearing but issues a substantive order after that awareness, the order must be vacated and the matter remanded for a new hearing before an impartial judge.
[1] When a trial judge becomes aware of grounds for recusal prior to or during a hearing on a motion, any substantive order issued by that judge must be vacated and the matte…
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 intelligence“may well have known of the grounds for the recusal order when he entered the order”
Court quoting Lance Block standard for when a judge issues an order while aware of recusal grounds
The trial court issued an order of recusal on December 20, 2017, and then issued an order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve an injunction. The ju…
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 Rule 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
January 7, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, C.J. On December 20, 2017, the trial court issued an order of recusal in Appellant’s case, and subsequently issued an order denying Appellant’s motion to dissolve injunction, without prejudice to refile.
In the order of recusal, the judge indicated that he was aware of the grounds for recusal at the hearing on Appellant’s motion, but still issued the order denying Appellant’s motion after the hearing. We therefore vacate the order denying Appellant’s motion to dissolve injunction and remand to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion. See Lance Block, P.A. v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart and Shipley, P.A., 85 So. 3d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (vacating order and remanding where trial judge “may well have known of the grounds for the recusal order when he entered the order” at issue) (footnote removed).
WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Ricky Sweet, pro se, Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1946)
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Drs. M.N. Farag and S.T. Iranpur v. Nat'l Databank Subscriptions, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Clemon Lewis, 463 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Bethea, 409 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- O'Neill v. State, 336 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- State v. FRY, 422 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State v. Boom, 490 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Lance Block, P.A. v. Searcy, 85 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)