Davidson v. Davidson
395 So. 2d 600, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 28291
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davidson v. Davidson. Read the opinion of the Court — 410 So. 2d 943 →
Opinion
Despite her claim that the amount was inadequate, there is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing the attorney’s fees awarded the appellant-wife. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Taplin v. Taplin, 386 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); compare, March v. March, 395 So.2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Davidson v. Davidson, 395 So. 2d 600, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 28291 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).
395 So. 2d 600 (Davidson v. Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Canakaris v. Canakaris
382 So. 2d 1197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
March v. March
395 So. 2d 200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Taplin v. Taplin
386 So. 2d 1199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)