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.
13 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1960–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Palma, 629 So. 2d at 833 (holding “fees may be awarded for litigating the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount of attorney's fees”); N. Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)) (“It 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.”) 1 We find no merit in the remaining claims raised by Nazarova and affirm on those points without further discussion. 2 See, e.g., Universal Prop. 2021The defendant’s answer brief does not rely on the case law interpreting section 60.07, but instead on the “rule of law regarding attorney fees that where entitlement is in issue a litigant may also claim attorney fees.” In support, the defendant cites North Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“It 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.”), and Household Finance Corp. III v. Williams, 29 | 5 | 5 |
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 | 3 | 3 |
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 |
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palmagreen2 sentences2022See Palma, 629 So. 2d at 833 (holding “fees may be awarded for litigating the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees but not the amount of attorney's fees”); N. Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)) (“It 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.”) 1 We find no merit in the remaining claims raised by Nazarova and affirm on those points without further discussion. 2 See, e.g., Universal Prop. 2003State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830, 832-33 (Fla.1993); Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc., 739 So.2d 720, 723-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Florida, Inc., 712 So.2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Dept. of Trans. v. Winter Park Golf Club, Inc., 687 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Waverly at Las Olas Condominium Ass'n v. Waverly Las Olas, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Ass'n, Inc. v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). 2 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hagangreen1 sentence2018State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980); Waterman v. State, 654 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Waterman v. Stategreen1 sentence2018State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 1980); Waterman v. State, 654 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Transp. v. Winter Park Golf Clubgreen1 sentence2003State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830, 832-33 (Fla.1993); Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc., 739 So.2d 720, 723-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Florida, Inc., 712 So.2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Dept. of Trans. v. Winter Park Golf Club, Inc., 687 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc.green1 sentence2003State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830, 832-33 (Fla.1993); Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc., 739 So.2d 720, 723-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Florida, Inc., 712 So.2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Dept. of Trans. v. Winter Park Golf Club, Inc., 687 So.2d 970, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Fannie R. Braxton v. United States of America and Department of Health & Human Servicesgreen1 sentence1996The federal appellate courts have frequently referred to the 120 day rule as an "instrument of oppression" [2] and have often felt constrained to warn lawyers to "[t]reat the 120 days with the respect reserved for a time bomb." Braxton v. United States, 817 F.2d 238, 241 (3d Cir.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 |
|---|---|---|
Tolliver v. State
green
1 sentence2022Corp., 998 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Mallas v. Mallas, 326 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). 2 However, if the asserted basis for the award of attorney’s fees is an underlying contract, and the pertinent contract language is “broad enough to encompass fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees,” a litigant may claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bouie v. City of Columbia
green
2 sentences1997When a similarly unforeseeable state-court construction of a criminal statute is applied retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability for past conduct, the effect is to deprive him of due process of law in the sense of fair warning that his contemplated conduct constitutes a crime.... [I]f the result above stated were attained by an exercise of the state's legislative power, the transgression of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be obvious,' and `The violation is none the less clear when that result is accomplished by the state judiciary in the course of const 1997When a similarly unforeseeable state-court construction of a criminal statute is applied retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability for past conduct, the effect is to deprive him of due process of law in the sense of fair warning that his contemplated conduct constitutes a crime.... [I]f the result above stated were attained by an exercise of the state's legislative power, the transgression of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would be obvious,' and `The violation is none the less clear when that result is accomplished by the state judiciary in the course of const | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Roberts v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1960Furthermore, the misconduct which in equity soils the hands of a litigant so as to bar him from the aid of a chancellor need not be a crime, Roberts v. Roberts, supra, nor even actionable fraud. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Busch v. Baker
green
2 sentences1960Busch v. Baker, 79 Fla. 113 , 83 So. 704 . 1960Busch v. Baker, 79 Fla. 113 , 83 So. 704 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.