Roudner v. MacKenzie

536 So. 2d 299, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2695, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5413, 1988 WL 131701
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 13, 1988·No. No. 88-2623·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On moving papers that were legally sufficient, the petitioners sought to disqualify the respondent judge from presiding over non-jury commercial litigation pending in the trial court below. The petitioners’ attorney in the pending matter is the daughter of the incumbent circuit judge who defeated the respondent judge’s husband in a recent election. These facts are sufficient to have warranted the respondent judge’s entering an order of recusal. See Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).. See also Breakstone v. The Honorable Mary Ann MacKenzie, No. 88-2392 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 29,1988). We are confident that the respondent judge will enter an order of recusal, and, accordingly, we withhold formal issuance of our writ of prohibition.

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

Roudner v. MacKenzie, 536 So. 2d 299, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2695, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5413, 1988 WL 131701 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

536 So. 2d 299 (Roudner v. MacKenzie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reyes Ex Rel. Reyes v. Infinity Indemnity Insurance Co.
221 So. 3d 775 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Barber v. MacKenzie
562 So. 2d 755 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Breakstone v. MacKenzie
561 So. 2d 1164 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)