From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moody v. Moody

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 13, 1998
705 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

Case No. 97-4784

Opinion filed February 13, 1998.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus — Original Jurisdiction.

Beverly B. Parker, Esquire, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., for petitioner.

Alexa K. Alvarez, Esquire, of Alvarez Page, Fernandina Beach, for respondent.


Sarah Moody petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. She and her husband are currently parties to a dissolution action in Nassau County. Mrs. Moody has moved for the disqualification of the presiding judge and the motion has been pending for over four months.

A writ of mandamus may issue to require a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal. See Flagship National Bank v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The purpose of the writ is not to require a particular outcome, only that action be taken. Kramp v. Fagan, 568 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We note that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(e) contemplates an "immediate ruling" on a motion for judicial disqualification.

The petition for writ of mandamus is granted and the Honorable Bill Parsons is directed to render an order on the motion for his disqualification within ten days of issuance of this opinion.

BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Moody v. Moody

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 13, 1998
705 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Moody v. Moody

Case Details

Full title:SARAH MOODY, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL R. MOODY, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 13, 1998

Citations

705 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Wells v. Castro

A writ of mandamus may issue to require a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal. Moody v.…

SR Acquisitions—Florida City, LLC v. San Remo Homes at Florida City, LLC

A writ of mandamus from this Court directs the trial court to take action, but does not decide the merits.…