FAMOUS BRANDS DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN E. HOKE, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1965-10-29
No. 6274
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and KAN-NER, (Ret.), JJ., concur.
179 So. 2d 420 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1965) Negative Treatment
Cited by 19 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. The appellant was the defendant below and the appellee was the plaintiff below.

We affirm this case on the authority of Croker v. Powell, 1943, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146.

Affirmed.

ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and KAN-NER, (Ret.), JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

  • Ortiz v. Ortiz, 211 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
    …es, the evidence indicating that $12,500.00 would be the maximum amount of the award. It has been held that a chancellor may not fix attorneys’ fees without expert testimony. Lyle v. Lyle, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 256; Thoni v. Thoni, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 420. It has also been held that attorneys’ fees awarded must be based on evidence given. Novack v. Novack, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 513; Hall v. Hall, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 544. We therefore find that the award of $15,000.00 for attorneys’ fees is no…
  • Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman, 372 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
    …50; defendant $3,500) that one of them must be wrong. [*514] While the setting of an attorney’s fee upon affidavits presented is allowed where neither party objects, it is not the proper method for determining this issue of fact. See Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Expert witnesses should present testimony showing the basis for the amount suggested to the court. Although we are usually not inclined to tread upon the trial court’s discretion in matters involving attorney’s fees, nevertheles…
  • Geraci v. Kozloski, 377 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
    …mortgagee based upon affidavits over objection of the mortgagor is improper. Evidence should be adduced so that the full range of cross examination will be afforded both parties. Demaso v. Demaso, 345 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Thoni v. Thoni, 179 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965); cf. Mullane v. Lorenz, 372 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Appellees filed cross assignments of error directed to two orders of the trial court, entered post final judgment on March 29, 1978, and October 3, 1978, and after the…

Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw