Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 88-2392
| Decision Date | 29 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2392,88-2392 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2595,561 So.2d 1163 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2595 Arthur BREAKSTONE, et al., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Mary Ann MacKENZIE, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William J. Berger, Miami, for petitioners.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Roy Wood, Asst. Co. Atty., for respondent.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON, and JORGENSON, JJ.
On moving papers that were legally sufficient, petitioner sought to disqualify the respondent judge from hearing and determining post-judgment garnishment proceedings because the attorney for an adverse party had made a substantial financial contribution to the recent judicial campaign of the respondent's husband. We hold these facts sufficient to have warranted the judge entering an order of recusal. See Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
On the suggestion made, the respondent judge should have entered an order of recusal. Because we perceive the trial judge will do so, we withhold formal issuance of our writ of prohibition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breakstone v. MacKenzie
...petition for writ of prohibition, a panel of our court held that the trial judge should have disqualified herself. Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The panel concluded that the substantial financial contribution by plaintiff's counsel constituted legally sufficien......