Rankin v. Edwards

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rankin v. Edwards

467 So. 2d 820, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1038, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13666

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1985

DocketNo. 85-465

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 467 So. 2d 820 (Rankin v. Edwards) 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

Rankin v. Edwards, 467 So. 2d 820, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1038, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13666 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This matter is before us upon a petition for writ of prohibition and a “Preliminary Response.” Based upon those pleadings and the appendix to the petition, the writ is granted. The declaration of the respondent that he cannot honestly and fairly try a case with a particular attorney is sufficient to have him grant, without further hearing, a motion for recusal. It is apparent from the record provided by the petitioners, which is unrefuted by the response, that respondent should not preside over any cases involving the law firm of Maher, Overchuck, Langa and Lobb. Thus, he is hereby prohibited from doing so in this case.

Writ granted.

COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This matter is before us upon a petition for writ of prohibition and a “Preliminary Response.” Based upon those pleadings and the appendix to the petition, the writ is granted. The declaration of the respondent that he cannot honestly and fairly try a case with a particular attorney is sufficient to have him grant, without further hearing, a motion for recusal. It is apparent from the record provided by the petitioners, which is unrefuted by the response, that respondent should not preside over any cases involving the law firm of Maher, Overchuck, Langa and Lobb. Thus, he is hereby prohibited from doing so in this case.

Writ granted.

COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 So. 2d 820, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1038, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rankin-v-edwards-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack