Legal Opinion
Goldfisher v. Ivax Corp.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 16, 2002No. 3D02-345PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
We have before us two requests for attorney’s fees. In the main appeal the trial judge denied stockholder Dr. Sidney Goldfisher’s request for attorney’s fees for his action which ultimately resulted in the removal of a “poison pill” clause from certain IVAX Corporation stockholder documents.1 The trial judge called it a “close call”, but ultimately concluded that while Dr. Goldfisher’s claim did produce action by IVAX benefitting IVAX shareholders, Dr. Goldfisher had failed to request fees and thus could not recover them. We agree.
Dr. Goldfisher cited to case law observing that where a party…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Boeing Co. v. Van GemertSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Stockman v. DownsSupreme Court of Florida · 1991
- Dealers Ins. v. Haidco Inv. EnterprisesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Tucker v. OhrenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011