QUOC VAN, PETITIONER,
v.
UNIFUND CCR, LLC., RESPONDENT
QUOC VAN, PETITIONER,
UNIFUND CCR, LLC., RESPONDENT
154 So. 3d 522
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2015)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner challenges the denial of his verified motion to disqualify the trial judge. We conclude that the motion was legally sufficient1 and, accordingly, grant the writ of prohibition. See Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“While it is well-settled that a judge may form mental impressions and opinions *523during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”).
WRIT GRANTED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfson v. Wolfson, 159 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…vidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”). As such, we conclude that the petitioner’s fear of partiality is reasonable, and we grant the petition. We are confident it will be unnecessary to formally issue the writ. See Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 154 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Kopel v. Kopel, 832 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Southeast Bank v. Capua, 584 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Writ granted.…
-
Mills v. Kinnan (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Pumphrey v. Kinnan (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Barnett v. Barnett, 727 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)