E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco

782 So. 2d 909, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3255, 2001 WL 246033

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-778

StatusPublished

This text of 782 So. 2d 909 (E.T. Plastering, Inc. v. Pacheco) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 909, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3255, 2001 WL 246033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/et-plastering-inc-v-pacheco-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack