Scott v. Durling

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. Durling

471 So. 2d 658, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14828

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2590

StatusPublished

This text of 471 So. 2d 658 (Scott v. Durling) 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

Scott v. Durling, 471 So. 2d 658, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14828 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims attorney’s fees based upon section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). In following the supreme court’s decision in Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1981), we affirm the trial court’s rejection of the appellant’s claim.

Although the question of whether an alleged defamation of a group of people is juridically cognizable has not been passed upon by a Florida court, it is not so free of doubt as to render the libel claim frivolous with a resultant entitlement to attorney’s fee. See, e.g., Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, 377 P.2d 42 (Okla.S.Ct.1962). Costs, however, are authorized under Rule 1.420(d) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for their recovery in the circumstance where, as here, a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

RYDER, C.J., and OTT and FRANK, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims attorney’s fees based upon section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). In following the supreme court’s decision in Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1981), we affirm the trial court’s rejection of the appellant’s claim.

Although the question of whether an alleged defamation of a group of people is juridically cognizable has not been passed upon by a Florida court, it is not so free of doubt as to render the libel claim frivolous with a resultant entitlement to attorney’s fee. See, e.g., Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, 377 P.2d 42 (Okla.S.Ct.1962). Costs, however, are authorized under Rule 1.420(d) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for their recovery in the circumstance where, as here, a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

RYDER, C.J., and OTT and FRANK, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 658, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1615, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-durling-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack