Crouch v. Public Service Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crouch v. Public Service Commission

993 So. 2d 148, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 19284, 2008 WL 4682331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 2008

DocketNo. 1D07-6060

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 993 So. 2d 148 (Crouch v. Public Service Commission) 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

Crouch v. Public Service Commission, 993 So. 2d 148, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 19284, 2008 WL 4682331 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the appellee under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the offer of judgment statute. The trial court’s order was entered subsequent to this court and the Florida Supreme Court awarding appellate attorney’s fees to the appellee based on an offer of judgment after establishing that the appellant was not entitled to relief under sections 112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes, the Whistle-blower’s Act. Crouch v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 913 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), rev. denied 933 So.2d 520 (Fla.2006). The appellant argues that the offer of judgment statute does not apply in whistle-blower actions. However, as applicability has been determined through the law of the case doctrine, we affirm. See Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Elliott, 924 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Further, this court declines to address the manifest injustice exception to the doctrine because applica[149]*149bility of the offer of judgment statute was established by a higher appellate court during the original appeal on the merits.

Affirmed.

BARFIELD, ALLEN, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the appellee under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the offer of judgment statute. The trial court’s order was entered subsequent to this court and the Florida Supreme Court awarding appellate attorney’s fees to the appellee based on an offer of judgment after establishing that the appellant was not entitled to relief under sections 112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes, the Whistle-blower’s Act. Crouch v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 913 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), rev. denied 933 So.2d 520 (Fla.2006). The appellant argues that the offer of judgment statute does not apply in whistle-blower actions. However, as applicability has been determined through the law of the case doctrine, we affirm. See Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Elliott, 924 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Further, this court declines to address the manifest injustice exception to the doctrine because applica[149]*149bility of the offer of judgment statute was established by a higher appellate court during the original appeal on the merits.

Affirmed.

BARFIELD, ALLEN, and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

993 So. 2d 148, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 19284, 2008 WL 4682331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crouch-v-public-service-commission-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack