Keane v. Andrews

Supreme Court of Florida

Keane v. Andrews

581 So. 2d 160, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 457, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 927, 1991 WL 101184

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1991

DocketNo. 76168

StatusPublished

This text of 581 So. 2d 160 (Keane v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keane v. Andrews, 581 So. 2d 160, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 457, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 927, 1991 WL 101184 (Fla. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice,

dissenting.

I would accept jurisdiction and quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

I dissent for the same reasons expressed in my opinion concurring in result only in the case of MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990).

This case is more egregious than Mac-Kenzie. In this case, the opposing law firm contributed $3,850 to the judge’s campaign, which constituted 17.5% of the judge’s campaign contributions. The Code of Judicial Conduct, in Canon 3(C)(1), expressly states that “[a] judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That canon is intended to assure and protect judicial integrity. Common sense dictates the conclusion that the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned in this case. To allow a judge to preside under the circumstances in this case places the integrity of the judicial system in a subservient role to the political process.

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

OVERTON, Justice,

dissenting.

I would accept jurisdiction and quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

I dissent for the same reasons expressed in my opinion concurring in result only in the case of MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990).

This case is more egregious than Mac-Kenzie. In this case, the opposing law firm contributed $3,850 to the judge’s campaign, which constituted 17.5% of the judge’s campaign contributions. The Code of Judicial Conduct, in Canon 3(C)(1), expressly states that “[a] judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That canon is intended to assure and protect judicial integrity. Common sense dictates the conclusion that the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned in this case. To allow a judge to preside under the circumstances in this case places the integrity of the judicial system in a subservient role to the political process.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 160, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 457, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 927, 1991 WL 101184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keane-v-andrews-fla-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack