Dynabilt Technology International Corp. v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dynabilt Technology International Corp. v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc.

755 So. 2d 765, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2000 WL 346140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-1786

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 765 (Dynabilt Technology International Corp. v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc.) 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

Dynabilt Technology International Corp. v. Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc., 755 So. 2d 765, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2000 WL 346140 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s assessment of attorney’s fees against Dynabilt Technology International Corporation, but reverse as to the amount of fees awarded because the final judgment does not make an express finding as to the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and the reasonable hourly rate. We remand for the sole purpose of making these findings. Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 731 So.2d 650 (Fla.1999); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gil, 573 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

.The remaining points that the appellant has raised on appeal lack merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s assessment of attorney’s fees against Dynabilt Technology International Corporation, but reverse as to the amount of fees awarded because the final judgment does not make an express finding as to the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and the reasonable hourly rate. We remand for the sole purpose of making these findings. Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 731 So.2d 650 (Fla.1999); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gil, 573 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

.The remaining points that the appellant has raised on appeal lack merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 765, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3965, 2000 WL 346140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dynabilt-technology-international-corp-v-warren-henry-automobiles-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack