The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 38
JUDGES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 38.06

38.06 Effect of acts where judge fails to disqualify himself or herself.—In any cause where the grounds for a suggestion of disqualification, as set forth in s. 38.02, appear of record in the cause, but no suggestion of disqualification is filed therein, the orders, judgments, and decrees entered therein by the judge shall be valid. Where, on a suggestion of disqualification the judge enters an order declaring himself or herself qualified, the orders, judgments, and decrees entered therein by the said judge shall not be void and shall not be subject to collateral attack.

History.—s. 7, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(6); s. 210, ch. 95-147.

F.S. 38.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 38.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 38.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 38.06

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 38.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. U. S. v. J. v. J. U. S. v. J. B. III, U. S. v. J. U. S. v. J. U. S. v. J. U. S., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018)

. . . See generally 3 Gordon et al., supra , § 38.06. . . . Fairness Policy , 67 No. 6 Interpreter Releases 153 (Feb. 5, 1990) ; see also 3 Gordon et al., supra , § 38.06 . . .

AQUILA, INC. v. C. W. MINING, d b a Co-, 545 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)

. . . Br. at 41, while the Aquila-Consolidated contract provided for a price of $38.06 per ton, Supp.App. at . . .

H. MONTGOMERY, v. UNITED STATES, 557 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . The exhibits totaled 38.06 grams of crack cocaine (Gov’t Exs. 1, 5,14, 16, 17, 36, 38 & 81) and 62.18 . . .

WALES, v. JACK M. BERRY, INC., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (M.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . 5/24/98 Bryan Katz Lunch at Subway 38.69 5/27/98 Bryan Katz Groceries including alcoholic beverages 38.06 . . .

CARMELL v. TEXAS, 529 U.S. 513 (U.S. 2000)

. . . It is thus no wonder that before 1986 the general rule of witness competency was codified at Article 38.06 . . . Article 38.07 was an exception to the general rule laid out in Article 38.06. . . . Ann., Art. 38.06 (Vernon 1979) — the section immediately preceding the law at issue in this case. . . . The dissent views Article 38.07 as an exception to the general rule of former Article 38.06. . . .

STEINHORST, v. STATE, 695 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1997)

. . . I recognize however that section 38.06, Florida Statutes (1991), in conjunction with section 38.02 could . . . Section 38.06 provides that where grounds for disqualification as set forth in 38.02 appear of record . . . Judge Turner’s conflict was in the record as the majority concludes it was then, according to section 38.06 . . . Again, I note that I believe it is actually section 38.06, in conjunction with 38.02, that the trial . . .

J. R. MEANS, v. BROWN,, 9 Vet. App. 482 (Vet. App. 1996)

. . . VA Adjudication PROCEDURE Manual, M21-1, Part IV, para. 38.06 (issued June 12, 1995). . . .

STEINHORST, v. STATE, 636 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1994)

. . . No matter what section 38.06 says, a statute cannot supersede a provision of the Constitution. . . . The opinion eviscerates the provisions of section 38.06 which validates all orders of a judge even if . . . The State calls our attention to the fact that section 38.06, Florida Statutes (1991), appears to render . . .

MARTINEZ- MACIAS, No. v. A. COLLINS,, 810 F. Supp. 782 (W.D. Tex. 1991)

. . . Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.06 (Vernon 1965). . . .

STEIN, v. FOSTER,, 557 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1990)

. . . This is consistent with § 38.06, Fla.Stat. (1987), dealing with the effect of disqualification of judges . . .

In S. HINKLEY, H. Y. ROBINSON, Sr. v. S. HINKLEY, 89 B.R. 608 (S.D. Tex. 1988)

. . . . § 38.06). Hinkley confuses restitution with compounding. . . .

UNITED STATES A M PETROLEUM, INC. v. SANTA FE ENGINEERS, INC., 822 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1987)

. . . untimely except as to the last delivery made, and accordingly rendered judgment in favor of A & M for $38.06 . . .

In S. HINKLEY, H. Y. ROBINSON, Sr. v. S. HINKLEY,, 58 B.R. 339 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1986)

. . . Defendant claims the note is unenforceable because it violates Tex.Penal Code § 38.06. . . .

WHITTENBERG, Mr. P. NAACP, Dr. T. H. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,, 607 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1985)

. . . 37.39 12.76 40.46 29.92 25.09 30.74 13.07 26.03 18.04 52.20 18.29 21.87 31.32 24.88 26.02 14.83 11.43 38.06 . . .

In ANTHRACITE COAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. No., 81 F.R.D. 499 (M.D. Pa. 1979)

. . . shall be paid from the class settlement funds as follows: 10.1 61.94% by the dealer class fund. 10.2 38.06% . . .

COLGROVE v. BATTIN, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, 413 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1973)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.06, p. 44 (2d ed. 1971). See also Cooley v. . . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 38.06 (2d ed. 1971). . . .

COOLEY, v. STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 459 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1972)

. . . union the right of trial by jury would be neither expanded nor contracted. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice 38.06 . . .

V. COLGROVE, v. F. BATTIN,, 456 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1972)

. . . union the right of trial by jury would be neither expanded nor contracted. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 38.06 . . .

ARMSTRONG, v. UNITED STATES, 440 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1971)

. . . Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “All other persons, except those enumerated in Articles 38.06 . . .

BEARDSLEE, a k a v. UNITED STATES, 387 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1967)

. . . This, too, is obviously taken from Mathes and Devitt, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 38.06 . . . We observe, incidentally, that the cases cited by the authors in support of their § 38.06 do not, as . . .

BOWLES, Jr. v. STATE OF TEXAS,, 366 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1966)

. . . Proc. 38.06 (1965). . . .

BRESSNER RADIO, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,, 267 F.2d 520 (2d Cir. 1959)

. . . This would have left petitioner with $38.06 to meet his service costs over the- next ten months of $98.10 . . .