SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST SEALORD SURETY, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Suffolk Construction appeals final judgments awarding attorney's fees to First Sealord Surety, arguing again against First Sealord's entitlement to fees. The court affirms, applying the doctrine of law of the case to prevent reconsideration of issues already decided in a prior appeal.
The court's prior ruling granting First Sealord entitlement to attorney's fees is law of the case and cannot be reconsidered absent manifest injustice. Suffolk has not demonstrated manifest injustice, so the trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees is affirmed.
[1] The doctrine of law of the case prevents reconsideration of issues necessarily decided in a former appeal.
[2] Absent manifest injustice, an appellate court is barred by the doctrine of law of the case from reconsidering its prior ruling on entitlement to attorney's fees.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal.”
Establishes the foundational principle of the law of the case doctrine that bars reconsideration of previously decided issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuffolk was the general contractor on a construction project and sued both the plumbing contractor for breach of contract and First Sealord Surety und…
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 Manifest Injustice Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (“Suffolk”), appeals final judgments entitling First Sealord Surety, Inc. (“Sea-lord”), to attorney’s fees. Because we do not find that a manifest injustice has been demonstrated sufficient to overcome the doctrine of law of the case, we affirm.
Suffolk was the plaintiff below and the general contractor on a construction project. Suffolk sued the plumbing contractor for breach of contract and sued the surety, First Sealord, under its- performance bond. A final judgment was entered on behalf of Suffolk against First Sealord. First Sealord appealed the final judgment. This Court reversed, see First Sealord Sur., Inc. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., 995 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and granted First Sealord’s motion for entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, directing the trial court to determine the amount. This Court denied Suffolk’s motion for rehearing. This Court’s mandate issued. The Florida Supreme Court denied Suffolk’s request for review and granted appellate attorney’s fees to First Sealord. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 14 So.3d 243 (Fla.2009). On remand, the trial court determined the amount of appellate attorney’s fees in this Court and in the Supreme Court and awarded attorney’s fees totaling $277,195.69 to First Sealord. Suffolk now appeals the attorney’s fees final judgments questioning not the amount of the fees, but questioning, once again, the issue of entitlement.
When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal. See Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So.2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Absent manifest injustice, this Court is barred under the doctrine of law of the case by its prior ruling granting entitlement to attorney’s fees. See Brunner Enters. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984). This Court previously ruled on the issue of First Sealord’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. Suffolk filed a motion for rehearing of our order, which we denied. Suffolk now raises the same entitlement issues in this appeal. These issues have previously been addressed by this Court and have become law of the case. As such, these issues cannot again be addressed by this Court. The narrow exception to this rule is where there is a showing of manifest injustice, which occurs only where the merits have not been considered or where there has been an intervening decision by a higher court. See Brunner; Feder v. Feder, 41 So.3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The record does not contain any evidence of such manifest injustice.
As this Court cannot rehear the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees contrary to its own mandate in the prior appeal, see Brunner, we affirm the judgments of the trial court on attorney’s fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Diversified Films, Inc. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 118 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…). This doctrine “requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” Id.; see also Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal.”). However, the law of…
-
Evans v. Murphy, 272 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ressed at the time the original order was entered.” We agree, and further conclude that the amended motion was barred by law of the case. See Evans v. Murphy, 159 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes 1 We note, by way of background, that the action below began as a dissolution of marriage…
-
Rivernider v. Sterling Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Condo Assoc (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…s Sterling's other arguments. However, an appellate court is barred under the doctrine of law of the case by its prior ruling granting entitlement to attorney's fees, absent manifest injustice. Suffolk Const. Co., Inc. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see, e.g., Young v. State, 939 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting that appellate courts have the power to reconsider and correct erroneous rulings where reliance on a previous decision would result in manifest injustice). The…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- First Sealord Sur., Inc. v. Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc., 995 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Feder v. Feder, 41 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)