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.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew Nathanson, as Successor Trustee of the Charlotte Stearn Revocable Trust Agreement v. Nadine Morelli and Kenneth Sterngreen2 sentences2017“A party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute or a procedural rule is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Nathanson v. Morelli, 169 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “[T]he party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla. 1992). 2017“A party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute or a procedural rule is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Nathanson v. Morelli, 169 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). | 3 | 3 |
Newman v. Guerragreen1 sentence2024See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226 , 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Generally, a party’s entitlement ‘to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is reviewed de novo.’” (quoting Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2015))); Newman v. Guerra, 208 So. 3d 314, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (stating, in the context of a fee award under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, that “[a] party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute or a procedural rule is a legal question subject to de novo review”). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Ancel Pratt, Jr. v. Michael C. Weiss, D.O.green1 sentence2024See Spanakos v. Hawk Sys., Inc., 362 So. 3d 226 , 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Generally, a party’s entitlement ‘to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is reviewed de novo.’” (quoting Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2015))); Newman v. Guerra, 208 So. 3d 314, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (stating, in the context of a fee award under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, that “[a] party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute or a procedural rule is a legal question subject to de novo review”). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2017“A party’s entitlement to an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute or a procedural rule is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Nathanson v. Morelli, 169 So.3d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “[T]he party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Bright v. Baltzellgreen1 sentence2015Bright v. Baltzell, 65 So.3d 90, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Save on Cleaners of Pembroke II Inc. v. Verde Pines City Ctr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.