Merrill v. Partridge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Merrill v. Partridge

765 So. 2d 305, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11063, 2000 WL 1227789

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 31, 2000·No. No. 5D00-1971·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the denial of the initial motion to recuse. As to the amended motion to recuse, it appears from the documents filed in this court that it was untimely filed. See• Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(e); Carter v. Howey, 707 So.2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So.2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The petitioner has not demonstrated any good cause for an exception to the ten-day time requirement.

PETITION DENIED.

COBB, HARRIS, and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the denial of the initial motion to recuse. As to the amended motion to recuse, it appears from the documents filed in this court that it was untimely filed. See• Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(e); Carter v. Howey, 707 So.2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So.2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The petitioner has not demonstrated any good cause for an exception to the ten-day time requirement.

PETITION DENIED.

COBB, HARRIS, and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.

Merrill v. Partridge, 765 So. 2d 305, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11063, 2000 WL 1227789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

765 So. 2d 305 (Merrill v. Partridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related