Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat; tutstar
Recusal is up to the presiding judge.

I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Recusal is mandatory within the language written by the legislators. The word "shall" leaves no option, permits no deviancy. It is an imperative. The language is clear:

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an afidavit . . . the judge SHALL proceed no ruther. . . but another judge SHALL be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified.
"Once a litigant 'makes and files' the affidavit, the judge has no further jurisdiction to proceed." This proposition that the filing of the affidavit alone removes the judge from jurisdiction over the matter is supported by a long line of Florida cases." In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160, Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC03-2169; also see Swepson v. Call, 13 Fla. 337 (1869); Suerez v. State, 115 S. 519, 524 (Fla. 1928); Dickenson v. Parks, 140 S. 459, 462 (Fla. 1932); Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2000); Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1164 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989); Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d at 484; Wishoff v. Polen In and For Broward County, 468 So.2d 1035 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1985); Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Publix Super Markets 814 So.2d 1249 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2002); Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1993); Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So.2d 769 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1994); CH2M Hill Southeast, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 598 So.2d 85 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1992); Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432; The trial judge may not debate the allegations contained in the motion, pass on the truth of its allegations or adjudicate the question of disqualification. See Townsend v. State, 564 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
55 posted on 04/04/2005 10:04:40 AM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: nicmarlo
I'm sorry, but that is not correct.

38.10 is for prejudice, and have the Schindlers filed such a petition? Or did they go under 38.02, the statute for generally asking a judge to recuse himself, which is up to the judge, subject to appeal.

In any case, had the Schindlers asked Greer to recuse himself, and they could back up the petition, Greer would not have been on the case anymore. The fact that he was on it to the end shows there was no reason for recusal.

60 posted on 04/04/2005 10:14:52 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson