IVAN KAPITANOV
v.
VASILE SILVIU VRANAU
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 trial court's order on a motion to disqualify counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court's factual findings if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] The standard of review for trial court orders on motions to disqualify counsel is abuse of discretion, under which an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's f…
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 intelligenceThe case involves a motion to disqualify counsel, with the trial court entering an order on this motion.…
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 Disqualification Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 581 (Fla. 2014) (“The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion. While the trial court’s discretion is limited by the applicable legal principles, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or implied findings of fact which are supported by competent substantial evidence.” (quoting Applied Digit. Sols., Inc. v. Vasa, 941 So. 2d 404, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Applied Digit. Solutions, Inc. v. Hark Vasa, 941 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Young v. Norva L. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 2014)