FELTON EMORY JOHNS, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
WAYNE L. SENN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Claim Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of two orders of the trial court. The first order granted summary judgment in favor of appellee with respect to the malicious prosecution action brought by appellant. The second order awarded a prevailing party attorney’s fee to appellee pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. The statute authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party when the trial court finds the losing party has asserted a frivolous claim. We affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee without further comment. However, we reverse the order awarding an attorney’s fee to appellee as the prevailing party. A review of the record does not establish that “there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party.” § 57.105, Florida Statutes (1993); Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corporation, 508 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla.1987); Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982).
Accordingly, this cause is affirmed with respect to the first issue, and is reversed with respect to the second issue.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ct presents an issue of law that is reviewable by the de novo standard of review. See Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Stwart Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 696 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Because the venue order in this case turns on an issue of law, we must review the order by the de novo standard. The parties to a contract may include a provision that establishes venue in a particular forum in the event of a c…
-
Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…issue of law that is subject to review on appeal by the de novo standard of review. See Inter-Active Services, Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Stewart Petroleum Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 696 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). A determination that a contract is unconscionable falls within this general class of decisions and is likewise reviewable by the de novo standard. See Garrett v. Janiewski, 480 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Here, the trial co…
-
Jenkins v. Eckerd Corp., 913 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…See Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. City of W. Palm Beach, 864 So. 2d 1168, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Avatar Dev. Corp. v. De Pani Constr., Inc., 834 So. 2d 873, 876 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Steuart Petroleum Co. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s London, 696 So. 2d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As to the admissibility of parole evidence, a trial court enjoys broad discretion in matters relating to the admissibility of relevant evidence, and a ruling in such regard will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of dis…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 508 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1987)