Wiper Hut Systems, Inc. v. Steavens

626 So. 2d 289, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11105, 1993 WL 444943
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 3, 1993·No. No. 93-2627·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendants below, seek certio-rari review of a trial court’s order denying a portion of their motion to tax costs and their motion to assess attorney’s fees against re-spondeni/plaintiff, after plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of this lawsuit. Certiorari is the proper method to review this order. Rose Printing Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 602 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), aff'd, 624 So.2d 257 (Fla.1993). We quash the order and remand with directions that the trial court award the costs relating to the deposition of the plaintiff and award attorney’s fees, which are recoverable under these circumstances by virtue of the contract between the parties. Id.

FARMER, KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

Wiper Hut Systems, Inc. v. Steavens, 626 So. 2d 289, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11105, 1993 WL 444943 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

626 So. 2d 289 (Wiper Hut Systems, Inc. v. Steavens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sholkoff v. BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSP.
693 So. 2d 1114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Edwards v. Wills
686 So. 2d 702 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)