Aristar, Inc. v. Armstrong

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aristar, Inc. v. Armstrong

497 So. 2d 1267, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2268, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10271

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 1986

DocketNo. 86-56

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 497 So. 2d 1267 (Aristar, Inc. v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aristar, Inc. v. Armstrong, 497 So. 2d 1267, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2268, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10271 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the trial court erred in denying Aristar, Inc.’s [Aristar] motion for attorney’s fees following Armstrong’s voluntary dismissal of his complaint against Ar-istar, we reverse, in part, the Order on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney’s Fees. We remand the cause and direct the trial court first, to determine which party prevailed in the case at bar under the analogous principles enunciated [1268]*1268in Simmons v. Schimmel, 476 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 597 (Fla.1986), and then, if appropriate, to exercise its discretion by ruling on the merits of Aristar’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 448.08, Florida Statutes (1981).

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the trial court erred in denying Aristar, Inc.’s [Aristar] motion for attorney’s fees following Armstrong’s voluntary dismissal of his complaint against Ar-istar, we reverse, in part, the Order on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney’s Fees. We remand the cause and direct the trial court first, to determine which party prevailed in the case at bar under the analogous principles enunciated [1268]*1268in Simmons v. Schimmel, 476 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 597 (Fla.1986), and then, if appropriate, to exercise its discretion by ruling on the merits of Aristar’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 448.08, Florida Statutes (1981).

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 1267, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2268, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aristar-inc-v-armstrong-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack