PIRELLI ARMSTRONG TIRE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
META E. JENSEN, RESPONDENT
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.
This case involves a dissent arguing that the offer of judgment statute does not authorize a contingency risk multiplier for attorneys' fees, as it violates equal protection principles by favoring plaintiffs and that the statute's purpose is to terminate litigation, not encourage it.
The dissenting judge argued that section 768.79, Florida Statutes, does not authorize a contingency risk multiplier for attorneys' fees and that its application violates equal protection.
The majority opinion affirmed an attorneys' fee award including a multiplier under the offer of judgment statute, a decision with which the dissenting…
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 Equal Protection Clause (U.S. And Florida Constitutions) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal certifying the following question to be of great public importance:
WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF A CONTINGENCY RISK MULTIPLIER TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER SECTION 768.79, FLORIDA STATUTES (1993), THE OFFER OF JUDGMENT STATUTE, VIOLATE[S] THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION AFFORDED UNDER THE UNITED STATES OR FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Under article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to review “any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public importance.” Because in rendering its decision, the Second District did not pass upon the question certified to this Court, we are without jurisdiction to review this case. See Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla.1995). Accordingly, we dismiss review of this case as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Allstate Insurance Co. v. Sarkis, 809 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), which expressly and directly conflicts with Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), review dismissed, 777 So. 2d 973 (Fla.2001), and Collins v. Wilkins, 664 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The petitioner, Sally Sarkis (Sarkis), was involved in an automobile accident, as a result of which she suffered damages…1 / 2
-
Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2002)…o that pertaining specifically to equitable estop-pel — an issue never raised in any of the pleadings, nor ever addressed by either the trial or the district court. This is a court of limited jurisdiction. In Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 777 So. 2d 973 (Fla.2001), we explained that our jurisdiction in certified question cases was limited to “any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public importance.” Id. at 974 (quoting art. V, § 3(b)(4…
-
Powell v. State, 969 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ce to the Florida Supreme Court, but the supreme court dismissed that case for review due to a lack of jurisdiction on the basis that this court did not pass upon the question prior to certifying the question. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Jensen, 777 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla.2001); see also Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384, 385 (Fla.1995) (dismissing the case because the district court did not address the issue contained in the certified question); accord Revitz v. Baya, 355 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 197…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Meta E. Jensen, 752 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- GEE v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1995)