# Prince v. Poole

> Supreme Court of Alabama · January 27, 2006 · 935 So. 2d 431

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936087

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert F. Prince the Prince Law Firm, P.C., as Successor to Prince, Poole, Cross Fischer, P.C. Charles E. Pearson, P.C. and Charles E. Pearson v. Phil Poole.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 27, 2006
- **Citations:** 935 So. 2d 431; 2006 WL 204979
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harwood
- **Judges:** Harwood, Smith
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936087

## Opinion text

I recuse myself. When the underlying action was filed in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court on May 12, 2000, I was one of the six circuit judges of that judicial circuit. On May 31, 2000, our presiding circuit judge advised the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court that all six circuit judges had recused themselves in the case because "[b]oth parties are local law firms whose members regularly practice in this circuit." Having recused myself at the trial court level, I consider myself obliged to recuse myself at the appellate court level.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9936087. Public record. Not legal advice.