J. T. FLEMING
v.
L. L. PARKS AND HARRY N. SANDLER, JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
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 issued a writ of mandamus compelling circuit court judges to disqualify themselves due to a party's belief of prejudice. The court found the judges' return to the rule nisi insufficient to overcome the petitioner's assertion of prejudice, thus requiring disqualification.
Yes, the circuit court judges must be disqualified. The court held that the judges' return to the rule nisi was insufficient to overcome the petitioner's showing of cause to believe they were prejudiced.
“We think and hold that the return is insufficient to overcome the showing that petitioner has cause to believe (however erroneous his conclusion may be) that each of the named respondents is infected with prejudice against him to such an extent that his cause may not be determined by either of such judges entirely fairly and impartially.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for granting the writ of mandamus, finding the judges' response inadequate to disprove the petitioner's claim of prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to disqualify two circuit court judges from presiding over pending litigation. The petitioner alleged that th…
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 Prejudice Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes on for determination on Rule Nisi and return thereto in mandamus proceedings wherein it is sought to require the respondents and each of them to enter orders disqualifying themselves to further sit as, and exercise the office of, circuit judge in certain pending litigation, to which petitioner is a party of record and at interest, in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Hillsborough County.
We think and hold that the return is insufficient to overcome the showing that petitioner has cause to believe (however erroneous his conclusion may be) that each of the named respondents is infected with prejudice against him to such an extent that his cause may not be determined by either of such judges entirely fairly and impartially. Therefore, it is our conclusion that peremptory writ of mandamus should be awarded on authority of our opinion and judgments in the cases of Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459; State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566, 179 So. 695 and Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Honorable Harry N. Sandler, 156 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1945)…he showing that such trial judge had made rulings or orders in the course of the litigation adverse to such litigant regardless of whether such rulings or orders were proper and correct or not. In the case of Fleming v. Parks et al., Circuit Judge, 155 Fla. 676 21 So. (2nd) 144, the sworn petition and supporting affidavit showed considerably more than that the judges there involved had merely entered rulings or orders adverse to the petitioner. Therefore, that case has no bearing on the case at bar. For t…
Authorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1938)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1932)