Coucher v. Licht

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coucher v. Licht

731 So. 2d 835, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807, 1999 WL 280426

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1999

DocketNo. 99-463

StatusPublished

This text of 731 So. 2d 835 (Coucher v. Licht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coucher v. Licht, 731 So. 2d 835, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807, 1999 WL 280426 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Linda, Peter and Phillip Coucher’s petition for writ of prohibition seeks recusal of a trial judge. We find some of the allegations sufficient, and we grant the writ.

According to the Couchers’ allegations, the judge commented several times about the veracity of a witness during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. The judge also commented that he would do some research to try to figure out a way to disregard the witness’s affidavit. We find these allegations were sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of the petitioners (defendants below) that they would not receive a trial by an impartial tribunal. Kasser v. Woodson, 549 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983).

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.

W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Linda, Peter and Phillip Coucher’s petition for writ of prohibition seeks recusal of a trial judge. We find some of the allegations sufficient, and we grant the writ.

According to the Couchers’ allegations, the judge commented several times about the veracity of a witness during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. The judge also commented that he would do some research to try to figure out a way to disregard the witness’s affidavit. We find these allegations were sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of the petitioners (defendants below) that they would not receive a trial by an impartial tribunal. Kasser v. Woodson, 549 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983).

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.

W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 835, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5807, 1999 WL 280426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coucher-v-licht-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack