E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A.

24 So. 3d 585, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14593, 2009 WL 3110062

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 30, 2009

Docket4D09-2871

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 So. 3d 585 (E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A.) 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

E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar S.A., 24 So. 3d 585, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14593, 2009 WL 3110062 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny DuPont’s petition for writ of prohibition which sought review of its motion to disqualify the trial court judge, the fifth such motion DuPont has filed in this case. An attorney’s legal campaign contributions within the statutorily permitted amount are not a legally sufficient ground for disqualification. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990). None of the other allegations raised in the motion set forth an objectively reasonable basis for DuPont to fear the judge is biased.

The contributions from attorneys in the firms representing the plaintiffs in this case were all within the statutorily permitted amounts, and the cumulative total of $4650 which the attorneys in the firms contributed to the judge’s reelection campaign does not approach the $3 million contribution at issue in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009). Contrary to DuPont’s argument, the circumstances of this case are not equivalent, or any *586 where close, to those presented in Caper-ton.

POLEN, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny DuPont’s petition for writ of prohibition which sought review of its motion to disqualify the trial court judge, the fifth such motion DuPont has filed in this case. An attorney’s legal campaign contributions within the statutorily permitted amount are not a legally sufficient ground for disqualification. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990). None of the other allegations raised in the motion set forth an objectively reasonable basis for DuPont to fear the judge is biased.

The contributions from attorneys in the firms representing the plaintiffs in this case were all within the statutorily permitted amounts, and the cumulative total of $4650 which the attorneys in the firms contributed to the judge’s reelection campaign does not approach the $3 million contribution at issue in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009). Contrary to DuPont’s argument, the circumstances of this case are not equivalent, or any *586 where close, to those presented in Caper-ton.

POLEN, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 So. 3d 585, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14593, 2009 WL 3110062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ei-dupont-de-nemours-co-v-aquamar-sa-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack