Oak Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oak Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co.

750 So. 2d 704, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2000 WL 27580

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-67

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 750 So. 2d 704 (Oak Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co.) 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

Oak Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 750 So. 2d 704, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2000 WL 27580 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

A litigant in a pending case seeks a writ of prohibition disqualifying the presiding judge solely on the ground that opposing counsel is a member of the District Court of Appeal Nominating Commission from which the judge has unsuccessfully sought in the past and allegedly may in the future seek nomination to this court. It is clear that, as a matter of law, these allegations form no lawful basis for disqualification. 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla.1997) (disqualification not appropriate solely because judge has reported attorney or attorney has reported judge to relevant disciplinary agency); MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990) (disqualification no appropriate solely because of attorney’s campaign contribution), reversing, Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (en banc). Even an implication, much less the overt contention contained in the proceeding now before us, that either the lawyer-commissioner or the trial judge would, or might reasonably appear to be influenced by the other’s position, is scandalous and outrageous. This petition should not have been filed.

Prohibition denied.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

A litigant in a pending case seeks a writ of prohibition disqualifying the presiding judge solely on the ground that opposing counsel is a member of the District Court of Appeal Nominating Commission from which the judge has unsuccessfully sought in the past and allegedly may in the future seek nomination to this court. It is clear that, as a matter of law, these allegations form no lawful basis for disqualification. 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So.2d 244 (Fla.1997) (disqualification not appropriate solely because judge has reported attorney or attorney has reported judge to relevant disciplinary agency); MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990) (disqualification no appropriate solely because of attorney’s campaign contribution), reversing, Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (en banc). Even an implication, much less the overt contention contained in the proceeding now before us, that either the lawyer-commissioner or the trial judge would, or might reasonably appear to be influenced by the other’s position, is scandalous and outrageous. This petition should not have been filed.

Prohibition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 So. 2d 704, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 164, 2000 WL 27580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oak-casualty-insurance-co-v-travelers-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack