City of Miami v. Ogle
This text of 600 So. 2d 31 (City of Miami v. Ogle) 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.
Opinion
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 an amended motion for appellate attorney’s fees. In our discretion we grant the motion. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
600 So. 2d 31, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6992, 1992 WL 123326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-ogle-fladistctapp-1992.