Case Name: DURA-STRESS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable William G. LAW, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-03-31
Citations: 634 So. 2d 769
Docket Number: Nos. 93-1315 to 93-1318
Parties: DURA-STRESS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable William G. LAW, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: W. SHARP, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 634
Pages: 769–775

Head Matter:
DURA-STRESS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable William G. LAW, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents.
Nos. 93-1315 to 93-1318.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 31, 1994.
Donald E. Christopher of Litchford, Christopher & Ruta, Professional Ass’n, Orlando, for petitioner, Dura-Stress, Inc.
Thomas B. Smith of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for petitioners, G. Kent Fuller and Carol M. Rosier.
J. Stephen McDonald of Robertson, Williams, Mitnik & McDonald, P.A., Orlando, and James F. Keedy of James F. Keedy, P.A., Leesburg, for respondents.

Opinion:
GRIFFIN, Judge.
This consolidated petition for a writ of prohibition seeks review of an order denying a motion to disqualify a judge in four cases where the petitioning parties are the same. A detailed discussion of the facts is set forth in the dissent of Judge Thompson. After a review of the petition and the response, we conclude that the writ should be denied in lower court case number 92-1002. The motion and supporting affidavit concerning the alleged communication between the judge and attorney Williams do not give any time reference and are legally insufficient. None of the other grounds alleged was timely raised before or during trial as required by Rule 2.160(e). Had these grounds been timely, they were, standing alone, a weak basis for recusal. Nothing in the court's statements about the Williams affidavit during the recusal hearing warranted disqualification.
Because, however, of the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, Petitioner adequately established a reasonable basis to fear that it would not receive a fair trial in the remaining three untried cases. In those, the lower court should have granted the motion.
We grant the petition and issue the writ of prohibition in lower court case numbers 92-656, 93-673 and 92-1008.
WRIT GRANTED.
W. SHARP, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
THOMPSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.