Haas v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haas v. Davis

37 So. 3d 983, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566, 2010 WL 2594771

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2010

Docket3D10-1017

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 So. 3d 983 (Haas v. Davis) 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

Haas v. Davis, 37 So. 3d 983, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566, 2010 WL 2594771 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from an order denying her verified motion to recuse the trial judge. In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification, the test is “whether ‘the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). While the alleged comments made by the trial judge may not have been intended to reflect on his beliefs as to the merits of the underlying claims, “the standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the subjective intent of the judge.” Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Brofman, 703 So.2d at 1192). We agree with the petitioner that the alleged comments could reasonably have caused her to “fear that she would not receive a fair trial.”

We grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand for assignment to a different judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from an order denying her verified motion to recuse the trial judge. In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification, the test is “whether ‘the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Brofman v. Fla. Hearing Care Ctr., Inc., 703 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). While the alleged comments made by the trial judge may not have been intended to reflect on his beliefs as to the merits of the underlying claims, “the standard is the reasonable effect on the party seeking disqualification, not the subjective intent of the judge.” Vivas v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 789 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Brofman, 703 So.2d at 1192). We agree with the petitioner that the alleged comments could reasonably have caused her to “fear that she would not receive a fair trial.”

We grant the petition for writ of prohibition and remand for assignment to a different judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 983, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9566, 2010 WL 2594771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haas-v-davis-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack