Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez
224 So. 3d 885, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11835, 2017 WL 3560572
Opinion
In light of the reversal of the underlying judgment on which the attorney’s fee order in this appeal is based, Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez, 219 So.3d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), we reverse the order on attorney’s fees. See ARC Foods, Inc. v. MGI Props., 746 So.2d 514, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 100 So.3d 783, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So.3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez, 224 So. 3d 885, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11835, 2017 WL 3560572 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).
224 So. 3d 885 (Ring Power Corp. v. Condado-Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
S & I INVESTMENTS v. Payless Flea Market, Inc.
40 So. 3d 48 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Ring Power Corporation v. Condado-Perez
219 So. 3d 1028 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Siegel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
100 So. 3d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
ARC Foods, Inc. v. MGI Properties
746 So. 2d 514 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)