Hogan v. Loewenkopf

Supreme Court of Florida

Hogan v. Loewenkopf

132 So. 698, 101 Fla. 864

DecidedFebruary 11, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 698 (Hogan v. Loewenkopf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hogan v. Loewenkopf, 132 So. 698, 101 Fla. 864 (Fla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam..

This cause having heretofore been submitted to' the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment except in this, to-wit: There is not found in the pleadings nor in the proof sufficient basis to support a judgment for attorney’s fees. The record shows that the judgment included *865 the sum of $500.00 for attorney’s fees. If the plaintiff in- the Court below shall within ten days of the filing of the mandate enter a remittitur in the sum. of $500.00, the remainder of the judgment will stand affirmed as of the date the same was originally rendered. Otherwise, the judgment will be reversed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed on remittitur.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Buford, J.J., concur. Strum, C.J., and Ellis and'Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam..

This cause having heretofore been submitted to' the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment except in this, to-wit: There is not found in the pleadings nor in the proof sufficient basis to support a judgment for attorney’s fees. The record shows that the judgment included *865 the sum of $500.00 for attorney’s fees. If the plaintiff in- the Court below shall within ten days of the filing of the mandate enter a remittitur in the sum. of $500.00, the remainder of the judgment will stand affirmed as of the date the same was originally rendered. Otherwise, the judgment will be reversed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed on remittitur.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Buford, J.J., concur. Strum, C.J., and Ellis and'Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 698, 101 Fla. 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-loewenkopf-fla-1931.