Wyman v. Reasbeck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wyman v. Reasbeck

436 So. 2d 1112, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22820

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 1983

DocketNo. 83-1097

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 436 So. 2d 1112 (Wyman v. Reasbeck) 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

Wyman v. Reasbeck, 436 So. 2d 1112, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to test the validity of denial of her motion to disqualify the trial court judge. We find no factual basis for the claim of prejudice and rest denial of the petition primarily on that ground. In passing we note (1) the inordinate delay in moving for disqualification after the complained of activity; (2) the trial court’s attempted compliance with the provisions of Section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1981) pertaining to attempted disqualification of a second judge (and we deem that compliance, whether necessary or not and whether sufficient or not, immaterial here); and (3) procedural irregularities in the motion and affidavits, all of which reinforce our determination to deny relief.

LETTS, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to test the validity of denial of her motion to disqualify the trial court judge. We find no factual basis for the claim of prejudice and rest denial of the petition primarily on that ground. In passing we note (1) the inordinate delay in moving for disqualification after the complained of activity; (2) the trial court’s attempted compliance with the provisions of Section 38.10, Florida Statutes (1981) pertaining to attempted disqualification of a second judge (and we deem that compliance, whether necessary or not and whether sufficient or not, immaterial here); and (3) procedural irregularities in the motion and affidavits, all of which reinforce our determination to deny relief.

LETTS, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 So. 2d 1112, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyman-v-reasbeck-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack