Katzen v. Knuck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Katzen v. Knuck

530 So. 2d 502, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2078, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3973, 1988 WL 91168

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1988

DocketNo. 88-739

StatusPublished

This text of 530 So. 2d 502 (Katzen v. Knuck) 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

Katzen v. Knuck, 530 So. 2d 502, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2078, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3973, 1988 WL 91168 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to disqualify the respondent from conducting further proceedings in the underlying garnishment litigation. For well over one year, both parties to the litigation mistakenly filed pleadings in another division of the trial court although the action had been assigned to the respondent’s division. When the error came to light, the petitioners filed a sworn motion to disqualify, citing as grounds therefore several prior re-cusals of the respondent in cases involving petitioner’s counsel. The trial court denied the motion. We agree that the petitioners’ motion and affidavit fulfill the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432 governing disqualification of civil court judges. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983) (Rule 1.432 controls disqualification process).

The writ of prohibition is, therefore, GRANTED.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to disqualify the respondent from conducting further proceedings in the underlying garnishment litigation. For well over one year, both parties to the litigation mistakenly filed pleadings in another division of the trial court although the action had been assigned to the respondent’s division. When the error came to light, the petitioners filed a sworn motion to disqualify, citing as grounds therefore several prior re-cusals of the respondent in cases involving petitioner’s counsel. The trial court denied the motion. We agree that the petitioners’ motion and affidavit fulfill the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432 governing disqualification of civil court judges. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983) (Rule 1.432 controls disqualification process).

The writ of prohibition is, therefore, GRANTED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 So. 2d 502, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2078, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3973, 1988 WL 91168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katzen-v-knuck-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack