DAVID AND DASH, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CAPITOL FIXTURE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion to disqualify for bias because the motion and supporting affidavits failed to comply with statutory requirements under § 38.10 Fla.Stat.
A motion to disqualify a trial judge for bias must state grounds or reasons and be supported by affidavits from reputable citizens of the county unrelated to the defendant or counsel, and failure to meet these statutory requirements renders the motion insufficient as a matter of law.
[1] A motion to disqualify a trial judge for bias under § 38.10 Fla.Stat. …
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 intelligenceDefendant corporation filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge for bias, accompanied by three affidavits from corporate officials, but the 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 Fla. Stat. § 38.10 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This interlocutory appeal by the defendant challenges the correctness of an order denying defendant’s motion filed under § 38.10 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. to disqualify the trial judge for bias. The motion was denied on the ground it was “insufficient as a matter of law.” In so holding, the judge whose impartiality was challenged was correct. No ground or reason for seeking disqualification was stated in the motion, which relied upon three accompanying affidavits as stating factual support for the motion. The affidavits were made by three officials of the defendant corporation. Assuming that the main affidavit (made by the Chairman of the Board of the corporation) may be considered as the required affidavit of the moving party, and without necessity to reach a decision as to whether the supporting affidavits of the other officials of the defendant corporation would meet the requirement of the statute which provides: “The said affida vit shall be supported in substance by affidavit of at least two reputable citizens of the county not of kin to the defendant or counsel for the defendant”, it appears the supporting affidavits, as worded, were insufficient under the authority of Hahn v. Frederick, Fla. 1953, 66 So. 2d 823.
Affirmed.