FRANXMAN
v.
FRANXMAN
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 trial court erred in vacating and setting aside its prior order of disqualification, and the writ of prohibition is appropriate to quash such vacation.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to vacate and set aside its own prior order of disqualification, and such action is properly challenged by writ of prohibition.
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 intelligenceFranxman petitioned for a writ of prohibition challenging a trial court's order that vacated and set aside a previously entered disqualification order…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
October 2, 2024 PER CURIAM.
The Court grants the petition for writ of prohibition and quashes the trial court order vacating and setting aside the order of disqualification. See Miller v. Bell S. Phone Co., 860 So. 2d 523, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). LEWIS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Bell S. Phone Co. & Kemper Nat'l Servs., 860 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)