METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND OFFICER RAYMOND MELCON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CAROL CEREZO, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of the appellee Carol Cerezo, plaintiff below. We write only to address the appellee’s motion to tax attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), and to note that we align ourselves with the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal, and grant the appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees and costs based on sections 768.79(1) and 59.46, Florida Statutes (1989). See Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. National Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036, 1043 n. 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Williams v. Brochu, 578 So. 2d 491, 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Thus, we remand the cause to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of the award and enter a judgment awarding fees to appellee. See Pinellas County, Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Bettis, 659 So. 2d 1365, 1367-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 668 So. 2d 602 (Fla. Jan. 29, 1996) (No. 86,636).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bundrage v. State, 814 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…does not have to refer to section 775.087 for the enhancement to apply, see Bryant v. State, 386 So. 2d 237 (Fla.1980), as long as it alleges the use of a firearm, see Staton v. State, 636 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also Matthews v. State, 774 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc) (holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense; information does not need to recite enhancement statute), review denied, 779…
-
Walker v. State, 965 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…lence is a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence, the offense is a qualifying offense under” the PRR statute. Watson v. State, 749 So. 2d 556, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), receded from on other grounds by Matthews v. State, 774 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Clark v. State, 779 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA [*1284] 2000), approved on other grounds, 790 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.2001); State v. Stevenson, 779 So. 2d 549, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). With respect to this offense, we con…
-
Darst v. State, 816 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nguage which created it. Section 921.0024(l)(b)1 creates a multiplier of 1.5 if the primary offense “is a violation of’ section 775.0823(9) or (10).2 But, [*682] section 775.0823 does not set forth specific substantive crimes. See Matthews v. State, 774 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), rev. denied, 779 So. 2d 272 (Fla.2000). Instead, this statute is a penalty enhancement statute which provides an “increase and certainty of penalty” for crimes committed against law enforcement officers and other specifie…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Susanne Rae Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Rondoe Marie Williams v. Jeannine O. Brochu, 578 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Mark C. Arnold Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Lumber Brokers, Inc., 642 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Mendolera, 647 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Bettis, 659 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)