School Board of Indian River County v. Livaudais

District Court of Appeal of Florida

School Board of Indian River County v. Livaudais

720 So. 2d 1175, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15032, 1998 WL 842701

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 1998

DocketNo. 98-2046

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 720 So. 2d 1175 (School Board of Indian River County v. Livaudais) 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

School Board of Indian River County v. Livaudais, 720 So. 2d 1175, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15032, 1998 WL 842701 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge because of the relationship between the judge and one of respondent’s possible witnesses. The trial judge had sua sponte disqualified himself in another proceeding where the same witness was to testify. The trial judge denied the motion to recuse, and petitioner filed this petition for a writ of prohibition. However, subsequent to the filing of the instant application, a senior judge was assigned to try petitioner’s case, and we determined that the petition was therefore moot. After the trial a motion for attorney’s fees was set before the original trial judge, and upon motion by petitioner, we reinstated this petition.

We dismiss the petition on the grounds that the motion of recusal was based upon possible bias surrounding the trial judge’s relationship with a potential witness for respondent. Since the ease was tried before a different judge, and there was no exposure of the first judge to the witness, the reason for recusal has been removed. There is no allegation that this same witness will testify in regard to any post-trial motions, such as the attorney’s fee motion which has already been set. Therefore, we conclude once again that the petition is moot and accordingly dismiss it.

DELL, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge because of the relationship between the judge and one of respondent’s possible witnesses. The trial judge had sua sponte disqualified himself in another proceeding where the same witness was to testify. The trial judge denied the motion to recuse, and petitioner filed this petition for a writ of prohibition. However, subsequent to the filing of the instant application, a senior judge was assigned to try petitioner’s case, and we determined that the petition was therefore moot. After the trial a motion for attorney’s fees was set before the original trial judge, and upon motion by petitioner, we reinstated this petition.

We dismiss the petition on the grounds that the motion of recusal was based upon possible bias surrounding the trial judge’s relationship with a potential witness for respondent. Since the ease was tried before a different judge, and there was no exposure of the first judge to the witness, the reason for recusal has been removed. There is no allegation that this same witness will testify in regard to any post-trial motions, such as the attorney’s fee motion which has already been set. Therefore, we conclude once again that the petition is moot and accordingly dismiss it.

DELL, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 So. 2d 1175, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15032, 1998 WL 842701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/school-board-of-indian-river-county-v-livaudais-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack