SPENCER SLATE, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID RICE, THE HONORABLE HARRY L. SAWYER, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE HONORABLE LESTER SOLA, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Spencer Slate brought an action in the Circuit Court for Leon County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that David Rice had violated the Resign to Run Law, section 99.012, Florida Statutes (2006), and asking that Rice’s name be removed from the ballot as a Republican Party candidate for the Florida House of Representatives in District 120. Judgment was entered for defendant Rice and Slate appeals. We have carefully read the briefs of the parties and the order of the circuit court, and reviewed the applicable law. It is our conclusion that the reasoning and the result of the circuit court are correct and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salazar v. Helicopter Structural & Maint., Inc., 986 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…claim is asserted without an adequate factual basis, it is still intended to preclude frivolous pleadings. Id. In that vein, a summary judgment does not automatically entitle the prevailing party to an award of section 57.105 fees. Bowen v. Brewer, 936 So. 2d 757, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Wendy’s of N.E. Fla., Inc. v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The trial court’s task at summary judgment hearings is separate and distinct from section 57.105 hearings. The former is a proceeding based…
-
Chue v. Lehman, 21 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…“ ‘an inquiry into what the losing party knew or should have known during the fact-establishment process, both before and after suit is filed.’ ” Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Bowen v. Brewer, 936 So. 2d 757, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). To award attorney’s fees under section 57.105(1), the trial court [*892] must find that the action was “frivolous or so devoid of merit both on the facts and the law as to be completely untenable.” Murphy v. WISU Props., Lt…
-
Hustad v. Architectural Studio, Inc., 958 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ISU Props., Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1088, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). [*571] Whether a claim is frivolous within the meaning of section 57.105, thus mandating the award of fees, is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Bowen v. Brewer, 936 So. 2d 757, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), review denied, 952 So. 2d 1188 (Fla.2007); Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934 So. 2d 615, 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). To exercise this discretion, the trial court must make “an inquiry into what the losing party knew or…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence