Funt v. Nadler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Funt v. Nadler

530 So. 2d 1107, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4187

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1988

DocketNo. 88-832

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 530 So. 2d 1107 (Funt v. Nadler) 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

Funt v. Nadler, 530 So. 2d 1107, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4187 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where a trial judge makes the parties aware of circumstances that might raise a question as to his ability to be impartial and spontaneously commits to re-cuse himself on a motion of a party, a subsequent and timely motion for recusal must be granted. It is held in such cases that the invitation to make the motion [1108]*1108speaks louder than a subsequent disclaimer of bias. Pistorino v. Ferguson, 386 So.2d 65 (Fla, 3d DCA 1980).

Further, the trial judge exceeded the proper scope of inquiry when he looked beyond the legal sufficiency of the verified motion for disqualification and challenged the truth of the bias allegation. That action alone would warrant disqualification. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440 (Fla.1978). Management Corp. of Am. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Because we grant the petition for writ of prohibition, the post-motion order setting the cause for a jury trial must also be reversed. Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). On remand the successor judge may revisit the jury trial question.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where a trial judge makes the parties aware of circumstances that might raise a question as to his ability to be impartial and spontaneously commits to re-cuse himself on a motion of a party, a subsequent and timely motion for recusal must be granted. It is held in such cases that the invitation to make the motion [1108]*1108speaks louder than a subsequent disclaimer of bias. Pistorino v. Ferguson, 386 So.2d 65 (Fla, 3d DCA 1980).

Further, the trial judge exceeded the proper scope of inquiry when he looked beyond the legal sufficiency of the verified motion for disqualification and challenged the truth of the bias allegation. That action alone would warrant disqualification. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440 (Fla.1978). Management Corp. of Am. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Because we grant the petition for writ of prohibition, the post-motion order setting the cause for a jury trial must also be reversed. Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). On remand the successor judge may revisit the jury trial question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 1107, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/funt-v-nadler-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack