FLORIDA JUICE COMPANY, INC., AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOHNNY YEATES, SR. AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an appellate court can award attorney's fees to a claimant's attorney for services on an unsuccessful appeal initiated by the claimant. The court held that such an award is within the appellate court's discretion, citing a prior ruling.
Yes, an appellate court has the discretion to award attorney's fees to a claimant's attorney for services on an unsuccessful appeal initiated by the claimant.
“The petition for writ of certiorari in this case raises the sole question of whether, in a workmen's compensation case, an appellate court can allow' claimant's attorney a fee for services rendered in said court when the appeal is taken by the employee claimant and said appeal is unsuccessful.”
This quote frames the central legal question addressed by the court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe District Court of Appeal, Third District, awarded attorney's fees to a claimant's attorney despite the claimant's unsuccessful appeal. The employe…
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 Appellate Court Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ of certiorari in this case raises the sole question of whether, in a workmen’s compensation case, an appellate court can allow' claimant’s attorney a fee for services rendered in said court when the appeal is taken by the employee claimant and said appeal is unsuccessful. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, did award claimant’s attorney, who was unsuccessful in certiorari to that court, a fee. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked on the assertion that the decision of the District Court on this point is in direct conflict with the decision of this Court in Virginian, Inc. v. Ponder, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 781.
The opinion and judgment of this Court in Wick Roofing Company v. Curtis, 110 So.2d 385, involving the identical question, held that the award of such a fee under such circumstances was within the sound discretion of the appellate court. Under the authority of that case, certiorari is denied.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y OF Fla., Inc., 706 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…power. Id. With that in mind, St. Petersburg’s narrow holding does not compel us to agree with the trial court that an ordinance authorizing the sale of a major city asset cannot be the subject of a referendum. See also City of Lake Worth v. State, 111 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1959). Appellees also argue that section 166.041(1)(a), Florida Statutes, when read in tandem with section 6.02 of the Charter, permits a referendum only when the action taken is legislative in nature, as distinguished from executive or admini…
-
Fallis v. City OF N. Miami, 127 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1961)…ferendum.” The provision is not mandatory; it is obviously intended to permit a referendum on a bond ordinance when such is demanded in accordance with other provisions of the municipal charter. Cf. Opinions in City of Lake Worth v. State, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 433. The municipal charter contains no provision which specifically requires an election for the purpose of approving these securities. Article XVII of the charter deals with the subject of “Initiative and Referendum.” Section 174 of that article, enti…
-
Scott v. City OF Orlando, 173 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…Court holding that an ordinance which would increase rates theretofore in existence for sewer charges, not being a permanent operation, was not subject to an initiative ref-endum. In another action, City of Lake Worth v. State of Florida, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 433, which involved the validity of revenue certificates issued by the City of Lake Worth, the Court held that an ordinance provid [*507] ing for the issuance of revenue certificates under which the city would incur indebtedness of $2,100,000, to be amo…
Authorities Cited
- Wick Roofing Co. v. Glenn D. Curtis & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 110 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1959)
- Virginian, Inc. v. Ponder, 72 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1954)