Ingram v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingram v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

823 So. 2d 314, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11658, 2002 WL 1875749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-1043

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 823 So. 2d 314 (Ingram v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Ingram v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 823 So. 2d 314, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11658, 2002 WL 1875749 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Annette Ingram [“Ingram”], seeks mandamus relief to review an order of the circuit court granting the respondent, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.’s [“Coca-Cola”], motion to recuse the trial judge. Ingram contends that Coca-Cola’s motion for recusal was untimely and legally insufficient.

Mandamus will lie to correct a recusal based upon a mistaken decision that the recusal affidavit was legally sufficient and timely filed. See May Invs., Inc. v. Lisa S.A., 814 So.2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dade County v. Turnbull, 572 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also State ex rel. Rembrandt Corp. v. Thomas, 117 Fla. 127, 157 So. 337 (1934).

We find no error in the trial judge’s implicit determination that the motion was legally sufficient. Nor will we disturb the trial judge’s recusal decision based on untimeliness. The motion was barely late, the explanation was reasonable and deference should be given to a trial judge’s decision not to preside over a case.

PETITION DENIED.

COBB, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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