Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hill v. Honorable Mark a. Speiser
Citations: 536 So. 2d 1190; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 217; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 155Docket: No. 88-3013
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 12, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
The court grants the petition based on the precedent set in Bundy v. Rudd, emphasizing that a judge faced with a disqualification motion must not evaluate the truth of the allegations or rule on the disqualification. Citing Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and various case law, the court asserts that if a judge investigates the facts or attempts to refute claims of bias, it constitutes grounds for disqualification. Consequently, a writ of prohibition is issued, requiring the respondent judge to disqualify himself from all current proceedings involving the petitioner. The chief judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit is instructed to assign another judge to oversee these matters. The petitioner’s request for clarification and an alternative bond is deemed moot. The decision is concurred by Chief Justice Hersey and Justices Letts and Stone.