From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roudner v. MacKenzie

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 13, 1988
536 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

granting prohibition (but withholding writ) where the "petitioners' attorney in the pending matter is the daughter of the incumbent circuit judge who defeated the respondent judge's husband in a recent election"

Summary of this case from Reyes v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co.

Opinion

No. 88-2623.

December 13, 1988.

Patricia E. Kahn, Miami, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


On moving papers that were legally sufficient, the petitioners sought to disqualify the respondent judge from presiding over non-jury commercial litigation pending in the trial court below. The petitioners' attorney in the pending matter is the daughter of the incumbent circuit judge who defeated the respondent judge's husband in a recent election. These facts are sufficient to have warranted the respondent judge's entering an order of recusal. See Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Breakstone v. The Honorable Mary Ann MacKenzie, No. 88-2392 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 29, 1988). We are confident that the respondent judge will enter an order of recusal, and, accordingly, we withhold formal issuance of our writ of prohibition.


Summaries of

Roudner v. MacKenzie

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 13, 1988
536 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

granting prohibition (but withholding writ) where the "petitioners' attorney in the pending matter is the daughter of the incumbent circuit judge who defeated the respondent judge's husband in a recent election"

Summary of this case from Reyes v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co.
Case details for

Roudner v. MacKenzie

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD A. ROUDNER AND LEONARD A. ROUDNER, P.A., PETITIONERS, v. HONORABLE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 13, 1988

Citations

536 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Reyes v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co.

nity Redevelopment Area, the target of the redevelopment plan); Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Cassone , 807…

Breakstone v. MacKenzie

The reasonableness of movants' concern is not diminished by that fact. See Roudner v. MacKenzie, 536 So.2d…