Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Leonard v. Roth

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 11, 1981No. 80-258Published

1Concurrence

HURLEY, Judge,

specially concurring.

I join in the court’s affirmance of this case because the record discloses that trial counsel for appellants/third party defendants agreed in writing to settle the case for a specific sum and then stated:

We do believe that you are entitled to some attorney’s fees, but certainly not that exceeds the amount of the original claim. We will be happy to submit a check to you settling the original claim and let the court set your attorney’s fee if you still claim it.

Based on the foregoing, appellees/third party plaintiffs settled for the agreed sum and concurred in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Martel v. CarlsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1960
  2. Florida Antilles Properties, N. V. v. Rose & Rose, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  3. American Mortgage Corp. v. LordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API