THE CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
BAILEY & DAWES, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Miami's appeal of a $175,000 jury verdict for reasonable attorney fees owed to Bailey & Dawes was affirmed, with the court finding no harmful error and upholding the trial court's assessment of prejudgment interest.
A jury verdict awarding $175,000 in reasonable attorney fees to a law firm and the trial court's subsequent assessment of prejudgment interest are affirmed where the appellant fails to demonstrate harmful error or preserve its contentions below.
[1] A party challenging a jury verdict for attorney fees must demonstrate harmful error and preserve its contentions at trial to succeed on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an earlier affirmance of summary judgment on liability in favor of the law firm Bailey & Dawes, a jury trial was held to determine the reaso…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After our affirmance of a summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiff law firm, City of Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 423 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), a jury trial to assess the reasonable fee to which it was entitled ended with a verdict of $175,000. A careful review of the record in the light of the points raised on this appeal from the consequent judgment shows that the defendant city has failed to demonstrate that harmful error in fact occurred or that it preserved its present contentions to that effect below. Hercules, Inc. v. Coto, 434 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Stowe v. Walker Builders Supply, Inc., 431 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Metropolitan Dade County v. Brill, 414 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Page v. Cory Corp., 347 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
We likewise find that the lower court’s order assessing prejudgment interest, entered pursuant to a stipulated reservation of jurisdiction for that purpose after the city had taken this appeal from the final judgment, was both procedurally and substantively correct. Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Huntley v. Baya, 136 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 143 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1962).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGURN v. Scott, 596 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1992)…McDonald, justice. We review McGurn v. Scott, 573 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), because of express and direct conflict with City of Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 453 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We approve in part and quash in part the opinion under review and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Scott filed suit ag…
-
McGURN v. Scott, 573 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…rdingly, we find that the order here presented for review is not final and we have no jurisdiction to review it and we dismiss the appeal. In so doing, we note apparent conflict between our decision and the result in City of Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 453 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). APPEAL DISMISSED. JOANOS, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
De Maria Porsche Audi, Inc. v. Tinker, 516 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…4); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Ocha, 472 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 478 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1985); Stephens v. Rohde, 478 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1986); City of Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 453 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); see also Milton v. Keith, 503 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Affirmed. . This court ordered the trial court to reverse the order striking the claim for…
Authorities Cited
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Huntley v. Baya, 136 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Loose v. State, 347 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Jonas Brill and Lorraine Mary Brill, 414 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Huntley v. Baya, 143 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1962)
- N. Shore Bank v. Lovi, 143 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1962)
- Stowe v. Walker Builders Supply, Inc., 431 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Hercules v. Coto, 434 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- City OF Miami v. Bailey & Dawes, 423 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)