CRAIG CALDWELL, PETITIONER,

v.

MR. RISKA, WARDEN, HAMILTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• The League OF Women Voters OF Fla. v. Detzner, 188 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
  …ns for fees does not excuse Appellants’ failure to abide by section 284.30. As we have explained, “giving the notice required by section 284.30 is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorney’s fees against the state.” Hale v. Dep’t of Revenue, 973 So. 2d 518, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s Order Denying Parties’ Motions for Attorneys’ Fees. AFFIRMED. SWANSON, J., concurs; THOMAS, J., concurs with opinion.…
• N.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 119 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …s position, we do not address the entirety of her arguments. Courts in our state have held that section 284.30 requires notice to DFS as a [*561] condition precedent when the claim for fees is made pursuant to other statutes. Hale v. Dep’t of Rev., 973 So. 2d 518, 521-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that section 284.30’s notice requirement is a condition precedent for fees in action by taxpayer against DOR pursuant to section 213.015); Dep’t of HRS v. Cordes, 644 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding…
• State v. Consumer Rights, LLC, 181 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
  …on 284.30 applies to the Act, it is not a condition precedent. However, this Court has found that “giving the notice required by section 284.30 is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorney’s fees against the state.” Hale v. Dep’t of Revenue, 973 So. 2d 518, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing to Fla. Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 511 So. 2d 677, 678-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). As such, because the notice requirement of section 284.30 is a condition precedent that CR failed to satisfy, we reve…

Authorities Cited

• Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)