Fleming v. Parks

Supreme Court of Florida

Fleming v. Parks

21 So. 2d 144, 155 Fla. 676, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 614

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 So. 2d 144 (Fleming v. Parks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleming v. Parks, 21 So. 2d 144, 155 Fla. 676, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 614 (Fla. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFORD, J.:

This cause comes on for determination on Rule Nisi and return thereto in mandamus proceedings wherein it is sought to require the respondents and each of them to enter orders disqualifying themselves to further sit as, and exercise the office of, circuit judge in certain pending litigation, to which petitioner is a party of record and at interest, in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Hillsborough County.

We think and hold that the return is insufficient to overcome the showing that petitioner has cause to believe (however erroneous his conclusion may be) that each of the named respondents is infected with prejudice against him to such an extent that his cause may not be determined by either of such judges entirely fairly and impartially. Therefore, it is our conclusion that peremptory writ of mandamus should be awarded on authority of our opinion and judgments in the cases of Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459; State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566, 179 So. 695 and Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519.

So ordered.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

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

BUFORD, J.:

This cause comes on for determination on Rule Nisi and return thereto in mandamus proceedings wherein it is sought to require the respondents and each of them to enter orders disqualifying themselves to further sit as, and exercise the office of, circuit judge in certain pending litigation, to which petitioner is a party of record and at interest, in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Hillsborough County.

We think and hold that the return is insufficient to overcome the showing that petitioner has cause to believe (however erroneous his conclusion may be) that each of the named respondents is infected with prejudice against him to such an extent that his cause may not be determined by either of such judges entirely fairly and impartially. Therefore, it is our conclusion that peremptory writ of mandamus should be awarded on authority of our opinion and judgments in the cases of Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459; State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 131 Fla. 566, 179 So. 695 and Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519.

So ordered.

CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur. BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 So. 2d 144, 155 Fla. 676, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-parks-fla-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack