A multi-million-dollar construction dispute between Savannah and its contractor produced a motion to recuse the trial judge. The City supported the motion with affidavits describing a family relationship between the judge and an attorney connected to the litigation, contacts between the judge and lawyers associated with a party, and the judge's assignment of the case to himself. The trial judge denied recusal, and the Court of Appeals reviewed that decision for abuse of discretion. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded. It held that the threshold questions under Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.3—timeliness, legal sufficiency of the affidavits, and whether the alleged facts would warrant recusal—are questions of law reviewed de novo. The affidavits contained specific, objective facts rather than bare conclusions. Taken as true at this stage, those facts could cause a fair-minded and impartial person reasonably to question the judge's impartiality under Canon 3E(1). The motion therefore had to be referred to another judge, who would decide it under the rule's procedure. All Justices concurred.