DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
THE INTEREST OF E.E., R.B. AND J.K., MINOR CHILDREN, RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legally Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition seeking disqualification of the trial judge because of prejudice. The motion to disqualify the trial judge, filed by the Department of Children and Family Services in the trial court, was legally insufficient because it was not sworn to by the Department or its representative. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160(c) (“A motion to disqualify shall be in writing and specifically allege the facts and reasons relied on to show the grounds for disqualification and shall be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit.”). The affidavit attached was signed by an individual whose connection with the case is unknown, but she is not designated as a representative of the Department.
GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Schuck, 913 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…VENSON, C.J., and CROW, DAVID F., Associate Judge, concur. . We take judicial notice of the fact that it was dark out during the subject stop. . A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law. Shingles v. State, 872 So. 2d 434, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). While legal conclusions should be reviewed de novo, "a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident…
-
State v. R.R., 90 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ten order. By denying the motion to suppress, the trial court implicitly determined the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply in this case. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law. Shingles v. State, 872 So. 2d 434, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Although we find no error with the trial court’s rulings concerning the suppression of R.R.’s statements, we find error with the ruling on the inevitable discovery doctrine and the suppression of the marijuana. As we recen…
-
D'Andre Bannister v. State, 132 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…he time of his interview and he did not receive adequate Miranda warnings. “A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact [*275] and law.” State v. R.R., 90 So. 3d 919, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Shingles v. State, 872 So. 2d 434, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). “When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress an incriminating statement, an appellate court accords a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s factual findings, but independently reviews mixed questions of law a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence