Young Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brooks

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brooks

507 So. 2d 722, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1314, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1852

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 507 So. 2d 722 (Young Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brooks) 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

Young Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brooks, 507 So. 2d 722, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1314, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversing that portion of the trial court’s order pertaining to prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, we remand the cause to the trial court to award prejudgment interest in accordance with the principles established in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), and Jones Products Corp. v. SAC Constr. Co., 495 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and to award attorney’s fees pursuant to the rule enunicated in Trustees of Cameron-Brown Inv. Group v. Tavormina, 385 So.2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Contra Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc., 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (trial court not bound by contract between party and attorney in determining fee to be awarded). Cross-appellant/appellee’s remaining point lacks merit. See Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversing that portion of the trial court’s order pertaining to prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, we remand the cause to the trial court to award prejudgment interest in accordance with the principles established in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), and Jones Products Corp. v. SAC Constr. Co., 495 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and to award attorney’s fees pursuant to the rule enunicated in Trustees of Cameron-Brown Inv. Group v. Tavormina, 385 So.2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Contra Alston v. Sundeck Products, Inc., 498 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (trial court not bound by contract between party and attorney in determining fee to be awarded). Cross-appellant/appellee’s remaining point lacks merit. See Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 722, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1314, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-manufacturing-inc-v-brooks-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack