B & B Construction Co. v. Cobbs

District Court of Appeal of Florida

B & B Construction Co. v. Cobbs

377 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 1979

DocketNo. QQ-37

StatusPublished

This text of 377 So. 2d 55 (B & B Construction Co. v. Cobbs) 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

B & B Construction Co. v. Cobbs, 377 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal, and the claimant cross-appeals, an order of the judge of industrial claims awarding an attorney’s fee to the claimant. Upon consid[CXXXVI]*CXXXVIeration of the briefs and the record, we affirm the order as to all issues presented by appellants but reverse on the point presented by the cross-appeal.

Cross appellant contends that the judge of industrial claims erred when, after determining that a fair and reasonable attorney’s fee would be $15,000, he reduced the fee to $12,500 on the grounds that $15,000 “would not be sustainable on appeal.” We conclude there was error in reducing the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded after a determination, with which we concur, that competent substantial evidence supported the award of $15,000. Tinsley v. City of St. Petersburg, 373 So.2d 675 (Fla.1979).

Accordingly, that portion of the order reducing the amount of the attorney’s fee is reversed, and the order is otherwise affirmed and modified to include an award of fees in amount of $15,000.

SHIVERS, Acting C. J., and SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The employer/carrier appeal, and the claimant cross-appeals, an order of the judge of industrial claims awarding an attorney’s fee to the claimant. Upon consid[CXXXVI]*CXXXVIeration of the briefs and the record, we affirm the order as to all issues presented by appellants but reverse on the point presented by the cross-appeal.

Cross appellant contends that the judge of industrial claims erred when, after determining that a fair and reasonable attorney’s fee would be $15,000, he reduced the fee to $12,500 on the grounds that $15,000 “would not be sustainable on appeal.” We conclude there was error in reducing the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded after a determination, with which we concur, that competent substantial evidence supported the award of $15,000. Tinsley v. City of St. Petersburg, 373 So.2d 675 (Fla.1979).

Accordingly, that portion of the order reducing the amount of the attorney’s fee is reversed, and the order is otherwise affirmed and modified to include an award of fees in amount of $15,000.

SHIVERS, Acting C. J., and SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 So. 2d 55, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-b-construction-co-v-cobbs-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack