Merrill v. Partridge

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Merrill v. Partridge

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2000

DocketNo. 5D00-1971

StatusPublished

This text of 765 So. 2d 305 (Merrill v. Partridge) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

765 So. 2d 305, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11063, 2000 WL 1227789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-v-partridge-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack