ALEJANDRO QUINTAS VAZQUEZ
v.
AILYN M. REBAZA SMITH
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.
Adverse judicial rulings do not constitute grounds for judicial disqualification absent evidence of actual bias or prejudice toward the litigant.
[1] Judicial disqualification laws are intended to prevent a judge's future action in a case, not to allow a litigant to remove a judge based on adverse rulings.
[2] Adverse judicial rulings, without more, do not establish the bias or prejudice required for judicial disqualification.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the laws governing judicial disqualification were never intended 'to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made,' but, instead, serve 'to prevent his [or her] future action in the pending case.'”
Court explaining the proper purpose and limits of disqualification doctrine
Alejandro Quintas Vazquez sought a writ of prohibition to remove the trial judge presiding over his dissolution of marriage proceedings, submitting a …
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 Judicial Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0370 Lower Tribunal No. 17-16028
________________
Alejandro Quintas Vazquez,
Petitioner,
vs.
Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Alejandro Quintas Vazquez, in proper person. No appearance for respondent. Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J. Petitioner, Alejandro Quintas Vazquez, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his dissolution of marriage proceedings pending below. His verified disqualification motion, deemed legally insufficient by the trial judge, alleges nothing more than adverse judicial rulings. We write only to reiterate the well-settled principle that the laws governing judicial disqualification were never intended “to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings made,” but, instead, serve “to prevent his [or her] future action in the pending case.” Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 31, 41 S. Ct. 230, 232, 65 L. Ed. 481 (1921) (citation omitted); see Ex parte Am. Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 43-44, 33 S. Ct. 1007, 1010, 57 L. Ed. 1379 (1913); Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 860 (Fla. 1956); State ex rel. Locke v. Sandler, 23 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 1945). Consequently, mere recitations of adverse rulings, without more, do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice necessary to support disqualification. See Ault v. State, 53 So. 3d 175, 204 (Fla. 2010); Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 58, 115 So. 519, 525 (1928); Clark v. Clark, 159 So. 3d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Orr v. State, 741 So. 2d 636, 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Solana v. Solana, 706 So. 2d 414, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “Whether such rulings were correct or not is a matter to be determined on appeal from the final judgment.” Claughton v. Claughton, 452 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accordingly, here, petitioner has failed to demonstrate a basis for relief.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (84 total)
-
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)…crime. All of the •earlier cases are mentioned. Actually Nickels stands for nothing more than the historical rule that relevant evidence is ad-missible except when the sole relevancy is proof of bad character. We think Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519, 526, rather clearly demon■strates the extent to which this court has gone, in announcing exceptions to the so-called rule which excludes collateral evi■dence that tends to suggest the commission of an independent crime. Again, however, it should be…
-
Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)…r in chronological proximity to the crime charged is relevant and admissible. To be part of the “entire context,” evidence must be linked to the issues by logical relationship. Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928). In the present case, there was no logical connection between the shooting and other events in Texas and the crimes of which appellant was accused. Unlike Smith, here the victims of the collateral crimes were not involved with the crimes cha…
-
State v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1938)…xnents of fact sufficiently related to the ground of disqualification as to justify belief in the party to the case that the Judge is biased or prejudiced. City of Palatka v. Frederick, 128 Fla. 366, 174 South. Rep. 826; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 South. Rep. 519. ' So the question presented here is: may an assistant prosecuting attorney in behalf of the State as a party in the criminal prosceution make a suggestion of disqualification of the trial judge under the terms of our statute, Section 4341, supra,…
Previewing 3 of 84 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1921)
- Ex parte Am. Steel Barrel Co. & Seaman, 230 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1913)
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Ault v. State, 53 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2010)
- F. K. G. Co., Inc. v. Keys Bottled GAS Co., 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1957)
- Claughton v. Edward N. Claughton and the Honorable Richard S. Fuller, 452 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- State v. Honorable Harry N. Sandler, 156 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1945)
- Efrain Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Clark v. Clark, 159 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)