JANICE HATCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JANICE HATCHER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
787 So. 2d 85
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of Janice Hatcher’s probation. We remand for correction of her sentence to reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently.
Affirmed but remanded for correction of scrivener’s error. WHATLEY, A.C.J., and GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mady v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 976 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…nnon Board & Caro Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), Pitchford v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 212 F. Supp. 2d 613 (W.D.Va.2002), and Pines v. Growers Service Co., 787 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court’s decision on whether the plaintiff was a prevailing party is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Marks v. State, Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 937 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Aramark Un…
-
N. Lakeland Pain & Trauma, Inc. v. Benson, 813 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ection 456.057 nor section 766.204 authorizes an award of attorney’s fees. In the absence of a statutory basis or contractual provision, a prevailing party is not generally entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Pines v. Growers Service Co., Inc., 787 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, Benson was not entitled to fees under those statutes. Benson also argues that the award is justified under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2001). In the trial court, Benson never suggested that she was entitled to…