Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC.

154 So. 3d 522, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 481, 2015 WL 196153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-4232

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 154 So. 3d 522 (Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC.) 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

Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC., 154 So. 3d 522, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 481, 2015 WL 196153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner challenges the denial of his verified motion to disqualify the trial judge. We conclude that the motion was legally sufficient¹ and, accordingly, grant the writ of prohibition. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions [523]*523during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”).

WRIT GRANTED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner challenges the denial of his verified motion to disqualify the trial judge. We conclude that the motion was legally sufficient¹ and, accordingly, grant the writ of prohibition. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions [523]*523during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”).

WRIT GRANTED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 3d 522, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 481, 2015 WL 196153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-v-unifund-ccr-llc-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack