City of Miami v. Moye

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Moye

602 So. 2d 587, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6020, 1992 WL 110916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1992

DocketNo. 91-531

StatusPublished

This text of 602 So. 2d 587 (City of Miami v. Moye) 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. Moye, 602 So. 2d 587, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6020, 1992 WL 110916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order on appeal for the reasons expressed in our opinion in City of Miami v. Burnett, 596 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Appellee, the claimant below, has filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees. The City has filed an untimely response to the motion for attorney’s fees and has asked that we treat the motion as timely filed. Claimant has moved to strike the response to the motion for attorney’s fees arguing it was not timely filed. We deny the motion to strike. We grant the motion to treat the response as timely filed. In our discretion we grant claimant’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. We remand the matter to the judge of compensation claims to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. We note that this is another of the cases involving the City of Miami’s pension offset ordinance and the briefs which have been filed are largely duplicative of other work. We direct the JCC’s attention to that part of our opinion in Burnett which dealt with appellate attorney’s fees.

JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order on appeal for the reasons expressed in our opinion in City of Miami v. Burnett, 596 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Appellee, the claimant below, has filed a motion for appellate attorney’s fees. The City has filed an untimely response to the motion for attorney’s fees and has asked that we treat the motion as timely filed. Claimant has moved to strike the response to the motion for attorney’s fees arguing it was not timely filed. We deny the motion to strike. We grant the motion to treat the response as timely filed. In our discretion we grant claimant’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees. We remand the matter to the judge of compensation claims to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. We note that this is another of the cases involving the City of Miami’s pension offset ordinance and the briefs which have been filed are largely duplicative of other work. We direct the JCC’s attention to that part of our opinion in Burnett which dealt with appellate attorney’s fees.

JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 587, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6020, 1992 WL 110916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-moye-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack