¶1On 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.
536 So. 2d 299
536 So.2d 299
13 Fla.L.Weekly 2695
Roudner v. MacKenzie
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided December 13, 1988
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-12-13
Relies on 488 So. 2d 627 - Caleffe v. Vitale
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1988-12-13
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2017
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →