JUAN CABADA, PETITIONER,
v.
SUE ANN COSTELLOE, 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.
The court granted a petition for writ of prohibition disqualifying a trial judge in a divorce case because the judge's unfounded comments suggesting the petitioner would flee the country before trial would cause a reasonably prudent person to fear an unfair trial.
A trial judge must be disqualified when he makes comments based on mere hunches rather than evidence that would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial.
[1] A trial judge must be disqualified when his comments, based on mere hunches rather than evidence, would cause a reasonably prudent person to fear inability to receive a f…
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 intelligence“I'm kicking the barn down for that one, as they say at the track. I just want to know where the two dollar window is on what country he'll be in on June 8th...I'm ready to plunk it on Peru.”
Judge's comments predicting petitioner would flee the country by the evidentiary hearing date
In a divorce proceeding, the trial judge expressed skepticism about petitioner's financial explanations and made comments suggesting petitioner would …
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 Bias And Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for writ of prohibition seeking disqualification of the trial judge presiding over petitioner’s divorce. We find that the judge’s comments that he thought petitioner would flee the country-before the next hearing, which were not based upon any evidence but just a “hunch” by the judge, “would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.” Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
It is apparent that the judge disbelieved petitioner’s proffered explanation of his financial situation and was perturbed by petitioner’s failure to deliver basic financial information. In response to petitioner’s assertion that he would prove his financial circumstances, the judge said, “I can’t wait. I mean, I’ll tell you what; I’m kicking the barn down for that one, as they say at the track. I just want to know where the two dollar window is on what country he’ll be in on June 8th (the date of the evidentiary hearing). I’m ready to plunk it on Peru.” The court actually twice predicted that petitioner would flee the country by the time of the hearing. From the perspective of the petitioner, we conclude he would have a well-grounded fear that he would not receive a fair trial.
STONE, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hayslip v. The Honorable Paul T. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)