Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Waller
Opinion
Although the factual predicate presented below creates a close question of law, we conclude that the motion and supporting affidavits are legally sufficient to state a reasonable fear on the part of petitioner that petitioner would not receive a fair hearing or trial before the currently assigned judge. We do not credit the principal contention of respondents Crittenden and Langley that the motion to disqualify was untimely filed. See Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.160(e). It was promptly filed after this judge was formally assigned. Accordingly, the writ of prohibition is issued.
WRIT GRANTED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
659 So. 2d 490 (Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Waller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.