Galbraith v. Hudson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Galbraith v. Hudson

609 So. 2d 79, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12257, 1992 WL 338524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 1992

DocketNo. 92-2731

StatusPublished

This text of 609 So. 2d 79 (Galbraith v. Hudson) 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

Galbraith v. Hudson, 609 So. 2d 79, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12257, 1992 WL 338524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Glenda Galbraith petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that her motion for disqualification of a judge of compensation claims for bias was improperly denied. We have considered the petition and the response and find that the allegations of the motion for disqualification, taken as true, are sufficient to create a well-founded fear that the moving party would not receive a fair hearing. We also find that the motion was made within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification. Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the chief judge of compensation claims is directed to reassign petitioner’s case to another judge of compensation claims for disposition on the merits.

JOANOS, C.J., and WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Glenda Galbraith petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, contending that her motion for disqualification of a judge of compensation claims for bias was improperly denied. We have considered the petition and the response and find that the allegations of the motion for disqualification, taken as true, are sufficient to create a well-founded fear that the moving party would not receive a fair hearing. We also find that the motion was made within a reasonable time after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification. Accordingly, the petition for writ of prohibition is granted and the chief judge of compensation claims is directed to reassign petitioner’s case to another judge of compensation claims for disposition on the merits.

JOANOS, C.J., and WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 So. 2d 79, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12257, 1992 WL 338524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galbraith-v-hudson-fladistctapp-1992.