Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mullins v. Kennellygreen2 sentences2018Inc., 204 So. 3d at 553 (quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). 2016Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So.2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1997) (additional citation omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
Oruga Corp. v. AT&T WIRELESS OF FLORIDAgreen2 sentences2026It is settled that in litigating over attorney’s fees, a litigant may claim fees where entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.”); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT&T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 768.79 as permitting an award of attorney’s fees for time spent litigating the amount of fees); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 57.105(1) as permitting an award of attorney’s fee 2025It is settled that in litigating over attorney’s fees, 6 a litigant may claim fees where entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.”); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT&T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 768.79 as permitting an award of attorney’s fees for time spent litigating the amount of fees); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 57.105(1) as permitting an award of attorney’s f | 2 | 2 |
Eisman v. Rossgreen2 sentences2026It is settled that in litigating over attorney’s fees, a litigant may claim fees where entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.”); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT&T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 768.79 as permitting an award of attorney’s fees for time spent litigating the amount of fees); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 57.105(1) as permitting an award of attorney’s fee 2025It is settled that in litigating over attorney’s fees, 6 a litigant may claim fees where entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.”); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT&T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 768.79 as permitting an award of attorney’s fees for time spent litigating the amount of fees); Eisman v. Ross, 664 So. 2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing to Palma and declining to construe section 57.105(1) as permitting an award of attorney’s f | 2 | 2 |
Montgomery v. Larmoyeuxgreen1 sentence2014See Montgomery v. Larmoyeux, 14 So.3d 1067, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Connelly v. Old Bridge Village Co-Op, Inc.green1 sentence2006Co-Op, Inc., 915 So.2d 652, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Peyton v. Hornergreen1 sentence2006Section 57.105(1) provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action if the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim when initially presented “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim” or “[w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” Although “[t]he post-1999 version of section 57.105 has greatly expanded the court’s power to award fees when a party asserts a claim without an adequate factual foundation[,] ... the new statute | 1 | 1 |
CARNIVAL LEISURE INDUSTRIES v. Holzmangreen1 sentence2004This statute was enacted to "discourage baseless claims, stonewall defenses and sham appeals in civil litigation by placing the price tag of attorney's fee awards on the losing parties." Carnival Leisure Ind., Ltd. v. Holzman, 660 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Whitten v. Progressive Cas. | 1 | 1 |
Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corporationgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mason v. HIGHLANDS COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS
green
2 sentences2006This court has held that "[a] finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 57.105 must be based upon substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the record." Mason v. Highlands County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 817 So.2d 922 , 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 2003“A finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 57.105 must be based upon substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing on attorney’s fees or otherwise before the court and in the record.” Mason v. Highlands County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 817 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 2 | 2003–2006 |
Infiniti Employment Solutions, Inc. v. MS Liquidators of Arizona, LLC
green
1 sentence2018Inc., 204 So. 3d at 553 (quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gahn v. Holiday Property Bond, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2004Gahn v. Holiday Property Bond, Ltd., 826 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002In Forum v. Boca Burger, the court interpreted amended section 57.105 as permitting the award of attorney's fees for appeals made necessary by baseless arguments made before the trial court, where the party asserting such arguments "persisted in trying to uphold [a] patently erroneous decision." 788 So.2d 1055 , 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), rev. granted Boca Burger v. Forum, 817 So.2d 844 (Fla.2002). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1988The Court held that “an award of attorney’s fees is a matter of substantive law properly within the aegis of the legislature.”, id. at 504 . 1988In Whitten v Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (1982), the Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 57.105 concerning the award of attorney’s fees against a party and the party’s attorney for maintaining a nonjustifiable action. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.