Civil Litigation

Please select a topic from the drop down list


Total Appeals Cases: 7

Hilyer Sod, Inc. v. Willis Shaw Express, Inc.

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1469 (Fla. 1st DCA June 28, 2002)

2002-06-28

APPEALS

The first District Court of Appeals found that if multiple plaintiffs make a joint proposal and fail to apportion the damages, the defendant cannot be held responsible for payment of attorney fees and costs, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999), if the settlement offer was at least 25% less than the actual recovery. The court relied on the Second District

Read More

Island Hoppers, LTD. v. Keith

27 Fla. L. Weekly D1257 (Fla. 4th DCA June 7, 2002)

2002-06-07

APPEALS

The trial court did not err in allowing fees expert testimony where the sufficiency of the expert

Read More

Escambia County, Florida v. Stanberry

27 Fla. L. Weekly D861 (Fla. 1st DCA April 26, 2002)

2002-04-26

APPEALS

The court reaffirmed its finding in Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759, where the award of attorney fees and costs requires an entry of final judgment. Thus, under section 768.79(6) of the Florida Statutes (2001), the entitlement of any possible attorney fees arises only "after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal."

Read More

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tampa Checkmate Food Services, Inc.

26 Fla. L. Weekly D2679 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 14, 2001)

2001-11-14

APPEALS

An officer of a defendant corporation cannot be held personally liable for fraudulent inducement and violations of the Florida Franchise Act where the officer did not personally participate in negotiations regarding the franchise, or any kind of fraud. The court found that a sole shareholder of a corporation which enters into a franchise agreement has no standing individually to assert a claim for a violation of the Florida Franchise Act. Moreover, the court found that prejudgment interest, calculated from the date of the verdict, may be awarded for a violation of the Florida Franchise Act.

Read More

Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Virginia Jackson

26 Fla. L. Weekly D2623 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 2, 2001)

2001-11-02

APPEALS

The Court found that an order granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages was not reviewable by certiorari where the procedural requirements of section 768.72 were met, and petitioners' arguments ultimately took issue with the sufficiency of evidence that was proffered in support of the punitive damages claim.

Read More