Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
160 citation events (61 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chaneli Marquez v. Roberto Bordon Oran, 427 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 442 Judge exceeding scope of inquiry regarding disqualification56 citing casesWhen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and has attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he [or she] has then exceeded the proper scope of his [or her] inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his [or her] disqualification10 citing courts put it this way
  • Chaneli Marquez v. Roberto Bordon Oran, 427 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).published
    (Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy.)
  • Randy W. Tundidor v. State of Florida, 361 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 2023).published
    (Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy.)
  • State of Florida v. Rachel Lynn Scharlepp, No. 18-1511 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 31, 2018).published
    (When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and has attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone…)
  • Sutton v. State, 975 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2008).published
    (Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy.)
  • State v. Scharlepp, 255 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).published
    (When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and has attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone…)
  • Eiffel DeCastro v. the State of Florida, 406 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).published 2 cites
    “When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone esta…”
  • Michelle Pimienta v. David Abraham Rosenfeld, 390 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).published
    By ruling that relief is warranted herein, we do not pass upon or consider whether the allegations in the motion are true. 2 appropriate and necessary remedy.” Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).
  • Hani N. Jada Vs Nancy C. Harrison, Esquire, P.L. & Nancy C. Harrison, Esquire, 369 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978) (Internal citations omitted). 2 Furthermore, while a judge may “explain the status of the record” when denying a motion to disqualify, if the trial court “comments on the validity or truthfuln…
  • Ramon N. Manuel, Gudelio N. Manuel, Emmanuel N. Manuel, Kelly D. Feig, Esq. & the Law Off. of Kelly D. Feig, P.A. v. Est. of Lapulapu Manuel, 367 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).
  • Martin Bodden v. State, 314 So. 3d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).published
    Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d 47, 78 (Fla. 2008) (citing Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978)).
Show 46 more citing cases
  • Steven Parmley v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 254 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).published
    R. 65-2.056, .057, .060(1), .066; Lee Mem'l Health Sys. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 910 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citing Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978)); World Transp., Inc. v. Cent.
  • Sands Pointe Ocean Beach Resort Condo Assoc., Inc. v. Aelion, 251 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).published
    The petitioners cite Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978), as authority that this basis alone constitutes grounds for disqualification.
  • Fetzner v. State, 219 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).published
    “When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone esta…”
  • Messianu v. Billot Pigna, 180 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978).
  • Greenwood v. State, 177 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).published
    (When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone est…)
  • Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 09-524 Re: Cohen, 99 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2012).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978) (quoting Dep’t of Revenue v. Golder, 322 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla.1975)).
  • Lynch v. State, 2 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2009).published 4 cites
    Cf. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So.2d 1332, 1339 (Fla.1990); Bundy, 366 So.2d at 442.
  • Stelzer v. Chin, 987 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).published
    (When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and has attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he [or she] has then exceeded the proper scope of his [or her] inquiry and o…)
  • Lee Mem'l Health v. Agency for Health, 910 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).published
    Bundy, 366 So.2d at 442.
  • Pierce v. State, 873 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).published
    Admin. 2.160(f); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978).
  • I.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 869 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978).
  • Martin v. State, 820 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).published
    This Court has previously explained that “[wjhen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and…
  • Martin v. State, 804 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).published
    (finding judge's attempt to refute charges of partiality alone suffices to disqualify)
  • Brinson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).published
    “an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant”
  • Shumpert v. State, 703 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).published 2 cites
    Bundy, 366 So.2d at 442 (citation omitted).
  • Hobbs v. State, 689 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).published
    As our supreme court said in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978): Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy.
  • Edwards v. State, 689 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).published
    “When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone *125…”
  • Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1995).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978) (citations omitted).
  • Time Warner Ent. v. Baker, 647 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).
  • Mitchell v. State, 642 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).published
    (judge's attempt to refute charges of partiality alone suffices to disqualify)
  • Dura-Stress, Inc. v. Law, 634 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).published
    Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.160(f); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978); Jenkins v. Fleet, 530 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Gieseke v. Moriarty, 471 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
  • Newman v. Eade, 627 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).published
    As the Supreme Court stated in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978): Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeat…
  • Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1993).published
    Id. at 442 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
  • Fabber v. Wessel, 604 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).published 2 cites
    “an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant”
  • DeGennaro v. Janie Dean Chevrolet, Inc., 600 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).published
    In Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978), the court held: Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy.
  • Orr v. Schack, 582 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).published
    Unfortunately, his order went well beyond merely passing on the legal sufficiency of the motion and included a justification or explanation for filing the grievance against petitioner’s lawyer, thereby creating automatic disqualification u…
  • Reynolds v. State, 568 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).published
    The Florida Supreme Court held in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978): Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have rep…
  • MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990).published
    This Court noted in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978), that: Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly…
  • Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Gale, 552 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978), and cases collected.
  • Breakstone v. MacKenzie, 561 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).published
    Civ.P. 1.432(d); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978); Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck, 508 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State ex rel.
  • Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Gale ex rel. Dade Cnty., 540 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).published
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978), and cases collected.
  • Hill v. Honorable Mark a. Speiser, 536 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).published
    We grant the petition and do so on the authority of Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978), from which case we quote the following excerpt: Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification a…
  • Jenkins v. Fleet, 530 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).published
    We have reviewed this matter under the rule of the Bundy case, which is stated in pertinent part as follows (366 So.2d at 442): Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insuffic…
  • Gieseke v. Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).published
    In Management Corporation of America v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the court cited Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978) for the proposition that "[w]hen a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a s…
  • Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1983).published 2 cites
    Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978) (quoting Department of Revenue v. Golder, 322 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1975) (on reconsideration)).
  • Mgmt. Corp. of Am., Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).published
    As the Supreme Court stated in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978): "Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repe…
  • Emmanuel Quiambao, Sr. a/k/a Joseph Emmanuel Quiambao v. Bernadette Quiambao a/k/a Bernadette Gatdula, Emmanuel Quiambao, Jr., & Harmony Closing Co., LLC, No. 6D2026-1147 (Fla. 6th DCA July 31, 2026).published
    See generally, e.g., Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).
  • M.D. Parker Assocs., Inc d/b/a Melissa Parker Interiors, Inc v. Micheal Connor, Dale Connor, & Bessenroth Builders Inc., 339 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).published
    See Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).
  • Letterese v. Brody, 985 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).published
    (holding that judge exceeds scope of inquiry, and disqualification is required, if the judge looks beyond the legal sufficiency of the motion and disputes the charges *599 of partiality)
  • Valltos v. State, 707 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).published
  • J & J Indus. v. Carpet Showcase, 723 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).published
  • Port Everglades Pilots Ass'n v. Florida-Caribbean Cruise Ass'n, 170 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).published
  • Haggerty v. State, 531 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).published
  • & SC16-1279 Robert Earl Peterson v. State of Florida & Robert Earl Peterson v. Julie L. Jones, etc., 221 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 2017).published
  • Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye, 585 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).published
  • Jeremy B. Hales v. Lynette Preston, 391 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).published
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Theodore R. BUNDY, Petitioner,
v.
John A. RUDD, As Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, Respondent.
55611.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Dec 22, 1978.
Published opinion
366 So. 2d 440
Per Curiam.
Cited by 92 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 81%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*441] Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent from continuing to exercise jurisdiction as trial judge in certain criminal proceedings presently pending against the petitioner in the Leon County Circuit Court. Because the case is one in which a sentence of death might ultimately be imposed, we have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; see Reino v. State, 352 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1977).

By indictment filed on July 27, 1978, petitioner was charged with two counts of murder in the first degree, three counts of attempted murder in the first degree, and two counts of burglary of a dwelling. After entering a plea of not guilty, petitioner filed a written motion to disqualify the trial judge, setting forth various incidents which had transpired during the course of the proceedings, and alleging that respondent had exhibited such prejudice as to place petitioner in fear that he would not receive a fair trial. The motion was accompanied by the supporting affidavits of petitioner, of the public defender appointed to represent him, and of four members of the public defender's staff who had participated in the preparation of petitioner's defense.

On November 20, respondent entered an order denying the motion for disqualification on the ground that the motion was legally insufficient. The order went on to explain, and in some respects controvert, the specific factual allegations contained in the motion. On the same day, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, to which he attached another affidavit of the public defender essentially denying that respondent's explanatory account of certain events was truthful. When that motion was similarly denied, again with explanation, petitioner instituted the present action in an effort to prevent his impending trial from commencing as scheduled on December 4.

Upon initial consideration, we determined that the petition on its face demonstrated a preliminary basis for relief and entered an[*442] order directing respondent to show cause why the motion and supporting affidavits were not legally sufficient. Having now considered all the relevant documents filed in this proceeding, we conclude that petitioner is entitled to the relief requested.

Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification "shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification." Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.230(d); see, e.g., Dickenson v. Parks, 104 Fla. 577, 140 So. 459 (1932); Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928); Theo. Hirsch Co. v. McDonald Furniture Co., 94 Fla. 185, 114 So. 517 (1927). When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification. Our disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determination of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent what occurred in this case — the creation of "an intolerable adversary atmosphere" between the trial judge and the litigant. See Department of Revenue v. Golder, 322 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1975) (On Reconsideration).

Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy. Brown v. Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928). Accordingly, the writ of prohibition must issue directing respondent to disqualify himself in all proceedings presently pending against the petitioner. We assume, however, that the formal issuance of the writ will be unnecessary.

The chief judge of the Second Judicial Circuit shall assign another judge within the circuit to preside over proceedings pending against petitioner, unless he shall deem it appropriate to request the chief justice of the Supreme Court to assign a qualified judge from without the circuit, pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.