COUCHER v. LICHT (1999)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District.

Linda COUCHER, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Margaret LICHT, et al., Respondents.

No. 99-463.

Decided: May 07, 1999

Sallie D. Skipper of Law Office of H. Curtis Skipper, P.A., New Port Richey, and Lefferts L. Mabie, III, of Lefferts L. Mabie, III, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners. Frank A. Miller and David J. Day, of Caglianone & Miller, P.A., Brooksville, for Respondent, Margaret Licht. Michael A. Roe of Austin, Ley, Roe, Patsko, Swain & Diaz, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent, State Farm. Alan D. Stewart, Tampa, for Respondent, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company.

Linda, Peter and Phillip Coucher's petition for writ of prohibition seeks recusal of a trial judge. We find some of the allegations sufficient, and we grant the writ.

According to the Couchers' allegations, the judge commented several times about the veracity of a witness during a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. The judge also commented that he would do some research to try to figure out a way to disregard the witness's affidavit. We find these allegations were sufficient to create a well-founded fear in the mind of the petitioners (defendants below) that they would not receive a trial by an impartial tribunal. Kasser v. Woodson, 549 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983).

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM.

W. SHARP, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network