J.M.P.U. v. Dept. of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.M.P.U. v. Dept. of Children & Family Services

862 So. 2d 752, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16144, 2003 WL 22439195

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-258

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 862 So. 2d 752 (J.M.P.U. v. Dept. of Children & Family Services) 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

J.M.P.U. v. Dept. of Children & Family Services, 862 So. 2d 752, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16144, 2003 WL 22439195 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent J.M.P.U. seeks reversal of the trial court’s adjudication of dependency based on the trial court’s denial of his third motion for recusal. We find no error in the trial court’s decision that the motion for recusal was legally insufficient, as well as untimely. The record reflects that the motion did not allege facts which demonstrated a well-founded belief that the respondent was unable to receive a fair trial from the trial court judge. See Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 659 (Fla.2000) (“the fact that a judge has ruled adverse to the party in the past does not constitute a legally sufficient ground for a motion to disqualify”). The record also reflects that the motion was clearly untimely. See Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The respondent J.M.P.U. seeks reversal of the trial court’s adjudication of dependency based on the trial court’s denial of his third motion for recusal. We find no error in the trial court’s decision that the motion for recusal was legally insufficient, as well as untimely. The record reflects that the motion did not allege facts which demonstrated a well-founded belief that the respondent was unable to receive a fair trial from the trial court judge. See Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 659 (Fla.2000) (“the fact that a judge has ruled adverse to the party in the past does not constitute a legally sufficient ground for a motion to disqualify”). The record also reflects that the motion was clearly untimely. See Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

862 So. 2d 752, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16144, 2003 WL 22439195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jmpu-v-dept-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack