Legal Opinion

Layne v. Grossman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 26, 1983No. Nos. 83-283, 83-430PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of prohibition, the response thereto, and argument of counsel, we conclude that the trial court should have granted petitioners’ motion to disqualify.

The essential allegations of the motion to disqualify, the truth of which must be accepted, were that the petitioners, through Layne, had asked a third party whether the respondent had in the past been represented by the same counsel who were representing Layne and Bernstein’s adversary in the action pending before the respondent, and that the respondent, upon *526being informed by the third party of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McDermott v. GrossmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. KnuckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  2. Lamendola v. GrossmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. D.W.Q. v. A.B.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  4. EMMANUEL QUIAMBAO, SR. A/K/A JOSEPH EMMANUEL QUIAMBAO v. BERNADETTE QUIAMBAO A/K/A BERNADETTE GATDULA, EMMANUEL QUIAMBAO, JR., and HARMONY CLOSING CO., LLCFlorida Sixth District Court of Appeal · 2026
  5. Richard K. Cannon, a/k/a Richard Cannon and Meryl Cannon v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015

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

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

Powered by the Exa API