MICHAEL NEWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL MOORE, F.D.O.C., APPELLEE
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.
Appellant prevails on motion for appellate costs under Rule 9.400(a) because he succeeded on the significant issue in his appeal, not because he won on the ultimate merits of the underlying claim.
A party is entitled to appellate costs under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a) if the party prevails on significant issues in the appeal, regardless of whether the party ultimately succeeds on the merits of the underlying claim.
[1] A party prevails on significant issues in an appeal for purposes of Rule 9.400(a) costs when the party obtains reversal of an adverse ruling, even if the party does not u…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Newell appealed a trial court order and this court previously determined he made a facially sufficient claim under Rule 1.540(b), reversing …
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 Rule 1.540(b) cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, C.J.
This proceeding is before us upon a motion for review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), by which the appellant challenges a trial court order denying a Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a) motion for costs relating to his earlier appeal. In that appeal this court determined that the appellant had made a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), and this court reversed the trial court’s denial of that motion. See Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
In thereafter denying the rule 9.400(a) costs motion the trial court found that the appellant is not entitled to such relief because he did not prevail on the merits of his earlier claim. But a rule 9.400(a) costs award does not depend on a party’s ultimate success on the merits of a claim, as it is sufficient if the party prevails on the significant issues in the appeal. See Florida Power and Light v. Polackwich, 705 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fleitman v. McPherson, 704 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Stringer v. Katzell, 695 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 698 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1997).
Because the appellant did prevail on the significant issue in his appeal, the trial court should have granted the rule 9.400(a) motion and awarded costs under the rule. The challenged order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded.
VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osterback v. L.E. Turner, 855 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…id not address the actual merits” of his complaint for declaratory and mandamus relief. As we have previously explained, an award of costs under rule 9.400(a) does not depend on a party’s ultimate success on the merits of a claim, Newell v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), and the merits of a claim need not be considered by the appellate court for a party to be eligible for an award of appellate costs, see Smith v. Department of Corrections, 797 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). It is sufficient if…
Authorities Cited
- Stringer v. Lawrence Katzell, M.D., 695 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Abe Shoemo, Jr. v. State, 705 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Polackwich, 705 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Rayburn v. David A. Caro, M.D., 789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Fleitman v. Virginia McPHERSON (individually and as President, 704 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)