Zaias v. Kaye

643 So. 2d 687, 1994 WL 552552
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 1994
Docket94-2139
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 643 So. 2d 687 (Zaias v. Kaye) 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
Zaias v. Kaye, 643 So. 2d 687, 1994 WL 552552 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

643 So.2d 687 (1994)

Nardo ZAIAS, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Honorable Robert P. KAYE, Respondent.

No. 94-2139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

October 12, 1994.

Murphy & Roig, and Patrick J. Murphy, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty., and Roy Wood, Asst. County Atty., for respondent.

Before BASKIN, JORGENSON, and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition challenging respondent's denial of a motion for disqualification. We deny the petition.

On August 31, 1994, petitioners moved to disqualify respondent, Judge Robert P. Kaye, because opposing counsel contributed to Judge Kaye's re-election campaign and served as one of over sixty members on his campaign committee. Petitioners alleged that difficulties they encountered in scheduling a hearing on their summary judgment motion evidenced the judge's bias. Judge Kaye has been re-elected, and the case is set for trial in the near future.

The fact that an attorney made a campaign contribution to a judge or served on a judge's campaign committee does not, without more, require disqualification. Nathanson v. Korvick, 577 So.2d 943 (Fla. 1991); MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 1990). In general, facts must be alleged indicating "a specific and substantial political relationship" between the parties to constitute legally sufficient grounds for disqualification. See MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., *688 565 So.2d at 1338 n. 5 (quoting Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)).

We note also that we are not faced with the circumstances present in Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So.2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 288 (Fla. 1991), where during the trial, counsel served as a member of the judge's contemporaneously active campaign committee. For these reasons, we deny the petition for a writ of prohibition.

Petition denied.

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

Related

CLAUDIO CINI v. ANGELA CABEZAS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Benitez v. Benitez
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Sands Pointe Ocean Beach Resort Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Aelion
251 So. 3d 950 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
William Patrick Cheek v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2017
Cheek v. State
79 N.E.3d 388 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2017)
Rivera v. Bosque
188 So. 3d 889 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Braynen v. State
895 So. 2d 1169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. Robinson
829 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Diluglio v. Petrarca, 89-0628 (1997)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1997
Cherradi v. Andrews
669 So. 2d 326 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
643 So. 2d 687, 1994 WL 552552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zaias-v-kaye-fladistctapp-1994.