NORRIS

v.

TREADWELL

Citator

Cited By

• Barco v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty., 975 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2008)
  …than 30 days after filing of the judgment. Norris, 907 So. 2d at 1218-19 (citations omitted). The First District went on to certify conflict with the Second District’s decision in Swann and this Court initially accepted review. Norris v. Treadwell, 919 So. 2d 435 (Fla.2006). However, the Court ultimately discharged jurisdiction and dismissed review, noting that the rule had been amended in 2006 to provide that the motion must be served “no later than” thirty days after the judgment. See Norris v. Treadwell,…
• Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …ppellants’ position in this case is that rule 1.525 creates a narrow window that opens only “upon the formality of the filing of the judgment and closes 30 days later.” Norris, v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), review granted, 919 So. 2d 435 (Fla.2006). However, the rule does not specify the earliest time when a motion for costs and attorney’s fees may be filed. We agree with the first district in Norris, that the “primary evil to be addressed by the supreme court’s adoption of Rule 1.5…
• Stowe v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 937 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
  …that the “primary evil” addressed by rule 1.525 “was the uncertainty created by excessive tardiness in the filing of motions for fees and costs.” Swift, at 887 (quoting Norris v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), review granted, 919 So. 2d 435 (Fla.2006)). We held that a motion for fees complied with the rule, and the policy behind it, when it was filed after the issuance of the order deciding the case, but before the largely ministerial act of entering the final judgment that conformed w…