Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1992

Cashe v. Moxley

Cashe v. Moxley
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided March 20, 1992 · Diamantis, Peterson, Sharp
596 So. 2d 1145; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3503; 1992 WL 51162 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cashe v. Moxley

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurring Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge,

concurring specially.

While I agree the petition for prohibition should be denied, I write to express my reasoning, which is based on procedural grounds, not substantive ones. If the trial judge in fact told an attorney (or any other witness) that the judge could not be fair and impartial in this case for whatever reason, that is a sufficient substantive reason to disqualify the judge, under the principles set out in MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332 (Fla. *11461990). However, procedurally these facts were not sufficiently established in this case because the attached “affidavits” depended upon double-hearsay allegations, and no witness swore he or she had personal knowledge that the statement was made.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.