CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
WALLACE D. CULBERTSON ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees In Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order allowing attorney’s fees in an eminent domain proceeding. The point presented challenges the amount of the fee.
The record reveals that the fee was less an amount than the amount testified to by any of the three expert witnesses. The City declined to present any evidence and stated upon inquiry by the trial judge, “I don’t know what a reasonable fee is . 1 want to throw that in your lap.” Upon further inquiry by the trial judge, the City stated that in such matters it used a rule of thumb of ten percent of the award. The amount allowed in this unusual and difficult case is less than twelve percent of the award. We conclude that the City has failed to show an abuse of judicial discretion. See Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Martin County, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 873; Dean v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 517.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Oolite Rock Co., 311 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…517; City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So. 2d 501; City of Miami Beach v. Manilow, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 910; City of Miami Beach v. Liflans Corporation, Fla.App. 1972, 259 So. 2d 515; City of Miami v. Culbertson, Fla. App.1973, 281 So. 2d 578. In City of Miami Beach v. Liflans Corporation, this court said: “. . . The attorney fees allowed by the trial court were well within the range of the testimony, relating to reasonable fees for the attorneys’ services, of an expert witness produce…
-
Petra Fishman v. Fishman, 656 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1995)…ule has been extended to include the enforcement of payments of attorney’s fees related to dissolution proceedings. State ex rel. Krueger v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498, 188 So. 575 (1939); Orr v. Orr, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466 (1939); Heitzman v. Heitzman, 281 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Civil contempt is appropriate only if the party to be held in contempt has the present ability to comply with the purge provisions and thereby avoid imprisonment. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1278 (Fla.1985). Prior to this…
-
Wertkin v. Wertkin, 763 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ule has been extended to include the enforcement of payments of attorney’s fees related to dissolution proceedings. State ex rel. Krueger v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498, 188 So. 575 (1939); Orr v. Orr, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466 (1939); Heitzman v. Heitzman, 281 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Id. at 1252. Although the precise issue in Fishman involved attorney’s fees incurred in the enforcement of visitation rights, we interpret the broad language in Fishman as authorizing trial courts to use contempt to enforce or…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 171 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1965)
- Dean v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 184 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)