Silverstein v. Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Silverstein v. Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund

911 So. 2d 831, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13668, 2005 WL 2085524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-1116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 911 So. 2d 831 (Silverstein v. Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund) 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

Silverstein v. Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund, 911 So. 2d 831, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13668, 2005 WL 2085524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Murray B. Silverstein, P.A. and Cynthia A. Mikos, P.A., contend that the trial court erred in declining to apply a multiplier to the class action attorneys’ fee award. While we may disagree with the trial court’s decision, we are unable to say that the court abused its discretion in so ruling. See Jones & Granger v. Johnson, 788 So.2d 381, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“In reviewing a decision of the trial court under the abuse of discretion standard, our mere disagreement with the reasoning of the trial court is not sufficient for reversal.”); Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting that a trial court’s order must be affirmed if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court’s action) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980)). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Murray B. Silverstein, P.A. and Cynthia A. Mikos, P.A., contend that the trial court erred in declining to apply a multiplier to the class action attorneys’ fee award. While we may disagree with the trial court’s decision, we are unable to say that the court abused its discretion in so ruling. See Jones & Granger v. Johnson, 788 So.2d 381, 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“In reviewing a decision of the trial court under the abuse of discretion standard, our mere disagreement with the reasoning of the trial court is not sufficient for reversal.”); Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So.2d 282, 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (noting that a trial court’s order must be affirmed if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the court’s action) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980)). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

ALLEN, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 831, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13668, 2005 WL 2085524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-public-medical-assistance-trust-fund-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack