Legal Opinion

Wolfson v. Wolfson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 18, 2015No. 3D15-630PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Candice Wolfson petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge from presiding over the parties’ post-dissolution proceeding after the trial court denied her verified motion to disqualify. We find that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient as the trial judge’s comments indicate that she had prejudged the case. 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 during the course of hearing evidence, he or she may not prejudge the case.”). As such, we conclude…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Barnett v. BarnettDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
  2. Kopel v. KopelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
  3. Southeast Bank, N.A. v. CapuaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  4. Van v. Unifund CCR, LLC.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Miami-Dade County Expressway Authority v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  2. Wolfson v. WolfsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API