Sweet v. Tucker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sweet v. Tucker

260 So. 3d 1191

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2019

DocketNo. 1D18-356

StatusPublished

This text of 260 So. 3d 1191 (Sweet v. Tucker) 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

Sweet v. Tucker, 260 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

B.L. Thomas, C.J.

On December 20, 2017, the trial court issued an order of recusal in Appellant's case, and subsequently issued an order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve injunction, without prejudice to refile.

In the order of recusal, the judge indicated that he was aware of the grounds for recusal at the hearing on Appellant's motion, but still issued the order denying Appellant's motion after the hearing. We therefore vacate the order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve injunction and remand to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion. See Lance Block, P.A. v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart and Shipley, P.A. , 85 So.3d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (vacating order and remanding where trial judge "may well have known of the grounds for the recusal order when he entered the order" at issue) (footnote removed).

Wetherell and Winsor, JJ., concur.

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

B.L. Thomas, C.J.

On December 20, 2017, the trial court issued an order of recusal in Appellant's case, and subsequently issued an order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve injunction, without prejudice to refile.

In the order of recusal, the judge indicated that he was aware of the grounds for recusal at the hearing on Appellant's motion, but still issued the order denying Appellant's motion after the hearing. We therefore vacate the order denying Appellant's motion to dissolve injunction and remand to the trial court for a new hearing on the motion. See Lance Block, P.A. v. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart and Shipley, P.A. , 85 So.3d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (vacating order and remanding where trial judge "may well have known of the grounds for the recusal order when he entered the order" at issue) (footnote removed).

Wetherell and Winsor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 So. 3d 1191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-tucker-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack