Legal Opinion

Kates v. Seidenman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 18, 2004No. 4D03-4658PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Petitioner, Elizabeth Kates, seeks a writ of prohibition following an order denying her motion' to disqualify the trial judge. Upon review of the verified motion, we conclude that Petitioner is entitled to the writ.

According to Petitioner, the judge made the following comments in court, without a court reporter, at the start of, during, and at the conclusion of the hearing for temporary alimony and attorney’s fees:

Why are you here. Why hasn’t this settled. It’s been 19 months.... This is a short-term marriage, and they’re not his kids.

[[Image here]]

This isn’t an alimony case. There’s no child…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1990
  2. Barnett v. BarnettDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
  3. Gonzalez v. GoldsteinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  4. State v. SteeleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  5. Irwin v. MarkoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Great American Insurance Co. of New York v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condominium Ass'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  2. Department of Children and Families and Statewide Guardian Ad Litem v. Y. B. and C. H.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025
  3. JORGE MILAN, etc. v. JOHN FANNINGDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2021
  4. Zanghi v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API