Sharp v. Barreto
95 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 2913172, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11526
This text of 95 So. 3d 321 (Sharp v. Barreto) 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
Sharp v. Barreto, 95 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 2913172, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11526 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
95 So. 3d 321, 2012 WL 2913172, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-barreto-fladistctapp-2012.