MURRAY B. SILVERSTEIN, & CYNTHIA A. MIKOS, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
PUBLIC MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Murray B. Silverstein, P.A. and Cynthia A. Mikos, P.A., contend that the trial court erred in declining to apply a multiplier to the class action attorneys’ fee award. While we may disagree with the trial court’s decision, we are unable to say that the court abused its discretion in so ruling. See Jones & Granger v. Johnson, 788 So. 2d 381, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“In reviewing a decision of the trial court under the abuse of discretion standard, our mere disagreement with the reasoning of the trial court is not sufficient for reversal.”); Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So. 2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting that a trial court’s order must be affirmed if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court’s action) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980)). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…lful violation of a substantial condition of parole or probation will justify revocation of parole or probation. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). These findings are factual in nature. See Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Therefore, they must be made by the hearing officer. Accordingly, when reviewing parole revocation proceedings, the circuit court must determine whether the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the fact…
-
Crosby v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 949 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…nt the petition. To support a revocation of supervised release, the state must prove that a violation of a condition of supervision was both willful and substantial. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002); Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, the finder of fact must make a determination that the violation was both willful and substantial. See Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, although the hearing examiner found peti…
-
Houck v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 953 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…nt the petition. To support a revocation of supervised release, the state must prove that a violation of a condition of supervision was both willful and substantial. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002); Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 911 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In addition, the finder of fact must make a determination that the violation was both willful and substantial. See Mathis v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 944 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, although the hearing examiner found peti…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Richitelli v. State, 687 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Jones & Granger v. Basil Johnson, Jr., 788 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)