Sapp v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sapp v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT

82 So. 3d 212, 2012 WL 921410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

Docket1D11-3697

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 So. 3d 212 (Sapp v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT) 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

Sapp v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 82 So. 3d 212, 2012 WL 921410 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

REVERSED and REMANDED for the Judge of Compensation Claims to determine, solely on the basis of the record without further receipt of evidence or argument, whether the Employer/Carrier had good cause for the lack of specificity of its initial response to Claimant’s fee motion, or for the untimeliness of its amended response to Claimant’s fee motion, and for a ruling on fees given that finding as to *213 good cause. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.124(3)(b); Morrison Mgmt. Specialists/Xchanging Integrated Servs. Group, Inc. v. Pierre, 77 So.3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remanding for determination of whether good cause existed for late filing of response to motion for attorney’s fees); Lias v. Anderson & Shah Roofing, Inc., 867 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing judge’s deviation from limited scope of remand, and again remanding for determination of factual issue “without the taking of further testimony” and entry of ruling resulting from that determination).

DAVIS and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

REVERSED and REMANDED for the Judge of Compensation Claims to determine, solely on the basis of the record without further receipt of evidence or argument, whether the Employer/Carrier had good cause for the lack of specificity of its initial response to Claimant’s fee motion, or for the untimeliness of its amended response to Claimant’s fee motion, and for a ruling on fees given that finding as to *213 good cause. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.124(3)(b); Morrison Mgmt. Specialists/Xchanging Integrated Servs. Group, Inc. v. Pierre, 77 So.3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remanding for determination of whether good cause existed for late filing of response to motion for attorney’s fees); Lias v. Anderson & Shah Roofing, Inc., 867 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing judge’s deviation from limited scope of remand, and again remanding for determination of factual issue “without the taking of further testimony” and entry of ruling resulting from that determination).

DAVIS and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 3d 212, 2012 WL 921410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sapp-v-miami-dade-police-department-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack