JOSE YEYILLE
v.
THE FLORIDA BAR, ET AL.
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 petition for prohibition was denied where the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court had prejudged the case based on interim mental impressions shared during the decision-making process.
[1] Trial court comments reflecting interim mental impressions during the decision-making process do not constitute prejudgment of a case and do not warrant the extraordinary…
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“On balance, a reasonably prudent person would understand that the trial court's comments as no more than the sharing of the sort of interim mental impressions which are a natural part of the decision making process—and not as an indication that the trial judge had prejudged the case.”
Court's reasoning for denying the petition, citing Shir L. Grp., P.A. v. Carnevale, 314 So. 3d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Jose Yeyille filed a petition for prohibition against The Florida Bar and other respondents in the Third District Court of Appeal.…
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 Prejudgment Of Case cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1138 Lower Tribunal No. 24-3037 ________________
Jose Yeyille, Petitioner,
vs.
The Florida Bar, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.
Jose Yeyille, in proper person.
Pryor Cashman LLP, and Brendan S. Everman, for respondents ALM Global, LLC and Michael Mora.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Denied. See Shir L. Grp., P.A. v. Carnevale, 314 So. 3d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“On balance, a reasonably prudent person would understand
2 that the trial court's comments as no more than the sharing of the sort of interim mental impressions which are a natural part of the decision making process—and not as an indication that the trial judge had prejudged the case.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Shir LAW Grp., P.A. v. Dario Carnevale, 314 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)