Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. State
190 So. 3d 120, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13808, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2148
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 16, 2015·No. No. 4D13-3497·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
ON MÓTIÓÑ FOR CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
We grant Appellants’ July 27, 2015 Motion for Certification of Questions of Great Public Importance and certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 768.28, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA SENATE RULE 4.81(6), IS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO LIMIT THÉ AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES PAID FROM A GUARDIANSHIP TRUST ESTABLISHED ■ BY A LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS BILL?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. State, 190 So. 3d 120, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13808, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2148 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).
190 So. 3d 120 (Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Grossman Roth, P.A. v. Mellen
221 So. 3d 683 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, etc. v. State of Florida
209 So. 3d 1181 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)