FRANK AMSALEM, PETITIONER,
v.
SIGAL AMSALEM, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the allegations in the motion for disqualification, taken as true, establish a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
Petitioner sought to disqualify the trial court judge, alleging facts that would cause a reasonably prudent person to fear an unfair trial. The trial …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Disqualify cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Frank Amsalem seeks a writ from this Court prohibiting the trial court judge from presiding over any further proceedings in this case. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to disqualify the trial court judge.
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for disqualification to determine whether the allegations appearing in the *72motion reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332, 1334-35 (Fla.1990). We do not review the truth or veracity of the motion’s allegations; for the purposes of our review, we accept those allegations as true. Zuchel v. State, 824 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
The allegations of Petitioner’s motion, which the trial court must accept as true, reflect that a reasonably prudent person would have a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
We grant the writ of prohibition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification. We remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1
We deny, as moot, Petitioner’s motion to expedite.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)
- Zuchel v. State, 824 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)