City of Miami v. Culbertson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Culbertson

281 So. 2d 578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 1973

DocketNo. 73-318

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 So. 2d 578 (City of Miami v. Culbertson) 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

City of Miami v. Culbertson, 281 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 So. 2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-culbertson-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack