E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco

782 So. 2d 909, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3255, 2001 WL 246033
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 2001·No. No. 3D00-778·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by E.T. Plastering, Inc., a defendant below, from an order denying its claim for attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999) based upon the plaintiffs refusal of an offer of settlement. The appellee Pacheco has candidly confessed error conditioned only upon our affirmance of the summary judgment entered in E.T.’s favor below. See Earnest & Stewart, Inc. v. Godina, 732 So.2d 364, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sunrise Club, Inc., 711 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Since we have done just that in Pacheco v. Florida Power & Light Co., 784 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded "with directions to determine the amounts recoverable.

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

E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco, 782 So. 2d 909, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3255, 2001 WL 246033 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

782 So. 2d 909 (E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Earnest & Stewart, Inc. v. Codina
732 So. 2d 364 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMENS v. Sunrise Club
711 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Pacheco v. Florida Power & Light Co.
784 So. 2d 1159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)