MARY M. HUGHES, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD A. GOOLSBY AND MARINE TRANSIT, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES; MARY M. HUGHES AND CHARLES E. HUGHES, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, V. DONALD A. GOOLSBY AND MARINE TRANSIT, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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 court held that section 768.79, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional as it improperly encroached upon the judiciary's rule-making authority. The court affirmed the personal injury judgment and costs award but reversed the attorneys' fees award.
Plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury action, challenging the denial of a new trial, an award of attorneys' fees, and an award of cos…
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 Rules Of Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mary Hughes appeals the final judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding her damages in a personal injury action, the order denying her motion for new trial or additur in respect to that judgment, the supplemental final judgment awarding attorneys’ fees, and the supplemental final judgment awarding costs. After careful review of the record, we are unable to find that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant the motion for new trial or additur, and affirm the judgment and order denying those motions.
With regard to the judgment awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), we agree with appellant that this statute is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in Milton v. Leapai, 562 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), which determined section 45.061, Florida Statutes (1987), unconstitutional. The reasoning in that opinion is equally applicable to the provisions in section 768.79. We reverse the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to that statute and certify the following question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE’S ENACTMENT OF SECTION 768.79, FLORIDA STATUTES, CONSTITUTED THE ADOPTION OF A RULE OF PROCEDURE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 2(a) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.
Finally, we find no error in the trial court’s determination of the liability for and the extent of litigation costs and affirm the supplemental final judgment awarding costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
BOOTH, ZEHMER, and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Timmons v. Combs, 579 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…2d DCA 1990), which hold that a defendant may not recover under section 45.061 where no judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.1 AFFIRMED. SMITH, WIGGINTON, JJ. and WENTWORTH, S.J., concur. . In an unrelated case, Hughes v. Goolsby, 578 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court reversed an award of attorney’s fees, holding that section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in Milton v. Leapai, 562 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), with respect to the Fifth…
-
Sharp Cmty. Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Ulyssee Sharp, Jr., 582 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…1990). But the statute was declared unconstitutional on this basis in Milton v. Leapai, 562 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). This court has adopted the reasoning of Milton in declaring a similar statute to be unconstitutional. See Hughes v. Goolsby, 578 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, it is unnecessary for us to address Richardson’s constitutional argument in this case since we find that the appellee did not establish the necessary predicate for the application of the statute.…
Authorities Cited
- Milton v. Leapai, 562 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)