STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
A. D. BENDER, ET AL.; J. T. FLEMING OF DEFENDANT V. L. L. PARKS AND HARRY N. SANDLER, CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a petition for disqualification of judges, finding the petition and affidavits insufficient. The court noted that the judges had recused themselves and awaited the appointment of a substitute judge to proceed with the case.
No, the petition and affidavits failed to meet the requirements for disqualification. Yes, a duly appointed substitute judge will have the power and jurisdiction to proceed with the disposition of the cause.
“We have considered the record and find that there was no error in denying the petition for order of disqualification because the petition and supporting affidavits fail to meet the requirements of the rule.”
Establishes the court's finding that the disqualification petition was legally insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Road Department filed a petition for an order of disqualification against Judges Parks and Sandler. The petition and supporting affidavits w…
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 Recusal Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
We have considered the record and find that there was no error in denying the petition for order of disqualification because the petition and supporting affidavits fail to meet the requirements of the rule. Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519.
It appears that both Judges Parks and Sandler have rescued themselves from further judicial action in this case and have requested the Governor to appoint a substitute Circuit Judge to further function as Judge in this cause, as was suggested in McGregor v. Hammock, 101 Fla. 1170, 132 So. 815; Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459-462.
It is our conclusion that if and when such substitute judge shall have been appointed such judge so appointed will have power and jurisdiction to proceed with the disposition of the cause.
Therefore, the petiton for mandamus is denied.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal M. Fairlamb v. Fairlamb, 156 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1945)…ida, if any, was not sufficient to give the Circuit Court of Pinellas County jurisdiction of the subject matter and was not sufficient to comply with requirements of Sec. 65.02, supra. See Taylor v. Taylor, 132 Fla. 690, 182 So. 240; Mills v. Mills, 153 Fla. 727, 15 So. (2nd) 763; Phillips v. Phillips, 146 Fla. 394, 1 So. (2nd) 186 and Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 620, 149 So. 483. Certiorari is granted and the challenged order is quashed with directions that the bill of complaint be dismissed. The court be…
Authorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)
- McGregor v. Hammock, 132 So. 815 (Fla. 1931)