Heier v. Fleet

642 So. 2d 669, 1994 WL 513957
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 21, 1994
Docket94-1615
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 669 (Heier v. Fleet) 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
Heier v. Fleet, 642 So. 2d 669, 1994 WL 513957 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

642 So.2d 669 (1994)

David S. HEIER, Petitioner,
v.
J. Leonard FLEET, as Circuit Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Respondent.

No. 94-1615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 21, 1994.

David S. Heier, pro se.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from hearing petitioner's case is denied as the motion was legally insufficient.

A verified motion for disqualification of a judge must contain an actual factual foundation for petitioner's alleged fear of prejudice. The facts asserted by a petitioner *670 in a motion to disqualify a judge must be reasonably sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of the party that he or she will not receive a fair trial. Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986). The standard to be applied by the judge is whether a reasonably prudent person would, on the basis of the stated facts, fear that he or she cannot get a fair trial with this judge presiding. E.g., Jernigan v. State, 608 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Adverse judicial rulings are not a proper basis for disqualification of the judge. E.g., Jackson v. State, 599 So.2d 103 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 612, 121 L.Ed.2d 546 (1992).

Here petitioner's allegations lack specificity and go almost entirely to judicial rulings of the judge. Regarding the one issue raised regarding alleged defamatory remarks made by the judge, which appears not to concern directly a judicial ruling, petitioner fails to say what remarks the judge has made about him, and is not sufficiently explicit about the circumstances in which they were made.

The judge correctly denied the motion for disqualification. Petitioner has failed to make an adequate preliminary case for a writ of prohibition.

HERSEY, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lomax v. Reynolds
119 So. 3d 562 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
D.H. Ex Rel. J.R. v. Department of Children & Families
12 So. 3d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Levine v. Levine
896 So. 2d 964 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Williams v. State
689 So. 2d 393 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Cherradi v. Andrews
669 So. 2d 326 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
642 So. 2d 669, 1994 WL 513957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heier-v-fleet-fladistctapp-1994.