Rosenkrantz v. Sutton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenkrantz v. Sutton

384 So. 2d 270, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16883

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 10, 1980·No. No. 79-1749·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review [which construed a written stipulation settling a lawsuit between the parties] is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court reasonably construed and applied paragraph 14 of said stipulation to entitle the appellee John R. Sutton to 10% of the 40% contingent fee receivable from the client for legal repre[271]*271sentation at trial in a certain case, which construction we are not disposed to reverse based on the legal principles stated in Hall v. Hall, 135 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

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

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review [which construed a written stipulation settling a lawsuit between the parties] is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court reasonably construed and applied paragraph 14 of said stipulation to entitle the appellee John R. Sutton to 10% of the 40% contingent fee receivable from the client for legal repre[271]*271sentation at trial in a certain case, which construction we are not disposed to reverse based on the legal principles stated in Hall v. Hall, 135 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

Rosenkrantz v. Sutton, 384 So. 2d 270, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16883 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

384 So. 2d 270 (Rosenkrantz v. Sutton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related