JORGE MILAN, ETC.
v.
JOHN FANNING
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.
The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of prohibition, finding that the trial judge's comments made before petitioners presented their evidence could reasonably cause them to fear they would not receive a fair and impartial trial, thus warranting disqualification.
A trial judge's comments made before a party has presented its evidence, if they could reasonably be interpreted as prejudging the issue, warrant disqualification under the fair trial standard.
[1] A trial judge's comments made before a party has presented its evidence, if reasonably interpretable as prejudging the case, warrant disqualification under the fair trial…
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“the question of disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.”
Explaining that disqualification analysis focuses on the perception of bias rather than the judge's subjective intent.
Petitioners Jorge Milan, South Florida Stadium LLC, and Miami Dolphins Ltd. sought a writ of prohibition from an order denying their motions to disqua…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
GORDO, J.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition from an order denying their sworn motions to disqualify the trial judge. “In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification, the test is ‘whether “the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.”’” Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 909, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)). While the trial judge’s comments may not have been intended to reflect his beliefs as to the merits of the underlying claims, “the question of disqualification focuses not on what the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and the basis of the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983)). “While a trial judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of hearing evidence in a case, the judge is not permitted to pre-judge the case.” Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So. 2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). It is clear from the transcript that the trial judge heard and saw evidence regarding the incident, but only Respondent’s evidence. The trial judge’s comments concerning that evidence, made before the petitioners even had an opportunity to present their argument “‘could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the judge had crossed that 2 line from forming mental impressions to prejudging the issue.’” 1440 Plaza, LLC v. New Gala Bldg., LLC, 314 So. 3d 555, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). We agree that the comments could reasonably have caused petitioners to fear that they would not receive a fair and impartial trial. Petition granted.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- 1440 Plaza, LLC v. NEW Gala Bldg., LLC, 314 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)