Sharp v. Barreto
95 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 2913172, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11526
Opinion
Affirmed. See In re Estate of Paris, 699 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (Stockman requirement is inapplicable to attorney’s fee claims in probate proceeding); Levine v. Keaster, 862 So.2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (appellant must identify the particular allegedly erroneous items of challenged attorney’s fees award).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sharp v. Barreto, 95 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 2913172, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).
95 So. 3d 321 (Sharp v. Barreto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In Re Estate of Paris
699 So. 2d 301 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Levine v. Keaster
862 So. 2d 876 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)