Legal Opinion

Muskin v. Muskin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 12, 1966No. 66-55PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This interlocutory appeal is brought to review an order making allowances pen-dente lite of alimony, suit money and attorney’s fees. No abuse of discretion has been shown as to the allowances of temporary alimony and suit money. See Landy v. Landy, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 707; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 565.

The appellant, defendant, urges that the law set forth in Thoni v. Thoni, Fla. App.1965, 179 So.2d 420, requires expert testimony for the setting of the amount of temporary attorney’s fees. We are not convinced that, in every case, these principles require expert testimony…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. JacobsSupreme Court of Florida · 1951
  2. Thoni v. ThoniDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
  3. Garfield v. GarfieldSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
  4. Ginsberg v. GinsbergDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  5. Landy v. LandySupreme Court of Florida · 1953

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Poling v. City Bank & Trust Company of St. PetersburgDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  2. Hall v. HallDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
  3. Rokicki v. RokickiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  4. Nudelman v. NudelmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  5. Peters v. PetersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API