GEORGE RIVENBARK, JR., LESLIE EUGENE MORGAN AND E. D. MIDDLETON PRODUCE INCORPORATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
DARRELL JOHNS, APPELLEE; GEORGE RIVENBARK, JR., LESLIE EUGENE MORGAN AND E. D. MIDDLETON PRODUCE INCORPORATED, APPELLANTS, V. DARRELL JOHNS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA JOHNS, DECEASED, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1968-04-18
Nos. I-185, I-225
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
211 So. 2d 233 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1968)

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.

Synopsis

This case involves a petition for review of cost judgments entered after a remand. The appellants argued that a 1967 amendment to a statute mandatorily required the assessment of bond premiums and court reporter expenses as costs. The court held that the amendment did not apply to costs incurred before its enactment.


Holding

No, the 1967 amendment to Section 57.071, Florida Statutes, does not apply to the settlement of costs in cases where the notice of appeal was filed and appellate costs were incurred prior to the amendment's enactment.


Key Quotes

“It is Rivenbark's position that Section 57.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as amended in 1967, mandatorily requires the assessment of bond premiums and expenses of the court reporter as costs.”

States the appellant's argument regarding the interpretation of the amended statute.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants petitioned for review of cost judgments entered by the Circuit Court after a remand. The petition concerned the assessment of bond premiums…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF COST JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Rivenbark in accordance with Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., petitions this court for review of cost judgments entered by the Circuit Court after remand of these two consolidated cases.

It is Rivenbark’s position that Section 57.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as amended in 1967, mandatorily requires the assessment of bond premiums and expenses of the court reporter as costs. Prior to the 1967 amendment, the statute appeared as Section 58.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and it provided that the allowance of bond premiums as costs was a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. Notice of appeal in one of these causes was filed on September 3, 1966, and in the other cause on September 22, 1966, and at that time the appellate costs were incurred. It is our opinion, and we so hold, that the 1967 legislative enactment does not apply to the settlement of the costs in these causes.

The petition is denied.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw