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.
Mere adverse judicial rulings, without additional evidence of bias or prejudice, do not constitute grounds for judicial disqualification under Florida law.
[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 due to adverse rulings.
[2] Adverse judicial rulings, without more, do not establish the requisite bias or prejudice necessary for judicial disqualification.
Previewing 2 of 4 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's statement of the controlling principle from Berger v. United States regarding the purpose and limits of judicial disqualification law.
In dissolution of marriage proceedings, Alejandro Quintas Vazquez filed a verified disqualification motion against the assigned trial judge based sole…
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 Stay Of Mandate 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
-
Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. de Saad, 126 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)