STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DIAMANTE URGA, RELATOR,
v.
L. A. GRAYSON, AS JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A Florida judge recused himself from a criminal case while a prohibition petition was pending against him for alleged prejudice. The Supreme Court held that the judge's recusal order was valid and served the purpose of the prohibition petition, so the court discharged the rule nisi as moot.
The rule nisi should be discharged because the judge's valid recusal order achieved the purpose of the prohibition petition by removing himself from the case and allowing substitution of another judge.
“prohibition will be granted only in cases of great urgency, special emergency, or absolute necessity”
Establishes the stringent standard for granting prohibition relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator filed a suggestion for prohibition on March 29, 1955, against the judge of the Criminal Court of Record in Hillsborough County, alleging preju…
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 Rule Nisi cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
March 29, 1955, relator filed her suggestion for prohibition in this court in which she prayed that respondent be prohibited from trying her on a charge brought in the Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County, because of prejudice. This court issued a rule nisi directed to respondent commanding him to show cause why the suggestion should not be granted. All proceedings in the cause were stayed pending disposition of the rule nisi. April 11, 1955, respondent entered an order recusing himself and the following day this court entered an order vacating that part of the rule nisi staying proceedings in the cause. Respondent entered his return to the rule nisi April 19, 1955, wherein he admitted the allegations of the petition for prohibition and the entry of the order recusing himself.
The point for determination is whether or not the rule nisi should be made absolute, the respondent having entered the order recusing himself.
The rule is settled in this country that prohibition will be granted only in cases of great urgency, special emergency, or absolute necessity. It commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the court is informed he is about to do. Its only effect is to suspend action and prevent further proceedings by the court or anyone to whom it is directed. United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L.Ed. 354; 73 C.J.S., Prohibition, § 9, p. 29.
In the order of April 12, 1955, vacating that part of the rule nisi staying further proceedings in the cause this court recognized the right of a respondent to recuse himself in this cause. In State ex rel. Rembrandt Corporation v. Thomas, 117 Fla. 127, 157 So. 337, 340, the power of a judge to recuse himself was adjudicated. In that case we held, inter alia, “it follows that where an order is made by a judge certify ing to his own disqualification, it must be construed as an order entered by such disqualified judge in the exercise of a special and limited statutory jurisdiction vested in him for that purpose.”
Account of these authorities we conclude that the rule nisi has served its purpose. There is nothing else it could accomplish. Respondent had power to recuse himself and his order doing so was not only valid, but it took him out of the case and opened the way for substitution of anothef judge to try it. The rule nisi -is therefore discharged.
It is’so ordered.
. DREW, C. J., and SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chapman v. Rose, 295 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law. Pitts v. McCrary, Fla.App.lst, 1971, 251 So. 2d 694. It has been said that prohibition should be granted only in cases of great urgency, special emergency or absolute necessity. State v. Grayson, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 679. Prohibition should not become a vehicle for the determination of questions involving correct or incorrect decisions of another court in matters in which that court has jurisdiction to act. State v. White, Fla.App.2d, 1964, 162 So. 2d 697. We hold…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Carey English v. The Honorable Robert L. McCRARY, Jr., 328 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…eting interests of the public in witnessing the painful dismemberment of a marriage would invert the purpose of the discretionary writ, which is to alleviate, not to create, “great urgency, special emergency or absolute necessity.” State v. Grayson, 80 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1955); Chapman v. Rose, 295 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla.App.2d, 1974).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Elwyn Thomas, 117 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1934)
- United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158 (U.S. 1866)