Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Dade County v. Cerezo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 24, 1996No. 95-2872PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of the appellee Carol Cerezo, plaintiff below. We write only to address the appellee’s motion to tax attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), and to note that we align ourselves with the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, and grant the appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs based on sections 768.79(1) and 59.46, Florida Statutes (1989). See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. FortnerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  2. Williams v. BrochuDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  3. Mark Arnold Constr. v. Nat'l LumberDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  4. Westfield Ins. Co. v. MendoleraDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
  5. PINELLAS BD. OF COM'RS v. BettisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Matthews v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  2. Lantigua v. LopesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API