Hammond v. Eastmoore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammond v. Eastmoore

513 So. 2d 770, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2388, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 8, 1987

DocketNo. 87-1715

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 770 (Hammond v. Eastmoore) 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

Hammond v. Eastmoore, 513 So. 2d 770, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2388, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10490 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, Judge.

This cause is before this court on a petition for writ of prohibition occasioned by the refusal of the respondent, the Honorable E.L. Eastmore, to recuse himself after a motion for disqualification was filed.

Were the motion in compliance with Section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1985) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230, we would order the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be issued. However, the motion is legally insufficient in that it fails to include affidavits as required by the statute and the rule and there is no certificate of counsel that the motion is made in good faith. An acknowledgment before a notary public is attached to the motion; however, the petitioner merely acknowledges that she executed the motion, she does not swear that the facts alleged are true. See McGibeny v. Smith, 511 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

WRIT DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

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

SHARP, Judge.

This cause is before this court on a petition for writ of prohibition occasioned by the refusal of the respondent, the Honorable E.L. Eastmore, to recuse himself after a motion for disqualification was filed.

Were the motion in compliance with Section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1985) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230, we would order the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be issued. However, the motion is legally insufficient in that it fails to include affidavits as required by the statute and the rule and there is no certificate of counsel that the motion is made in good faith. An acknowledgment before a notary public is attached to the motion; however, the petitioner merely acknowledges that she executed the motion, she does not swear that the facts alleged are true. See McGibeny v. Smith, 511 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

WRIT DENIED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 770, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2388, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-eastmoore-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack