PATRICK R. BURNS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, APPELLEE
Upon further consideration of this cause and after oral argument before the Bar of this Court, the Court finds that the constitutional prerequisites to vest jurisdiction in this Court do not exist in this case. It is, thereupon,
Ordered that, in accordance with Rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., the notice of appeal and all papers filed herein shall be forthwith transferred by the Clerk of this Court to the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Broward County.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, HOBSON, DREW and' O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J, TERRELL, J., and WALKER, Circuit Judge, dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Mahler v. Lauderdale Lakes Nat'l Bank, 322 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1975)…since attorneys’ fees are appropriately awarded only if petitioner is ultimately successful, both issues can be resolved by the Judge of Industrial Claims. . 307 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1974). . Such a showing was made, for example, in Matera v. Gautier, 133 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1961). . The Commission’s findings are in part directed toward the employer’s effort to meet this burden. These findings are unnecessary if the reference to Glarh is intended to mean that petitioner failed, as a preliminary matter, to meet her…
-
What AN Idea, Inc. v. Sitko, 505 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…he substituted opinion on rehearing in Polote Corporation v. Meredith, 482 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The claimant cross-appeals the deputy commissioner’s order allowing payment of the attorney’s fees in installments, citing Matera v. Gautier, 133 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1961), City of Leesburg v. Padgett, 397 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and M. Serra Corporation v. Garcia, 426 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). While we agree with cross-appellees that these cases are distinguishable in that in none of them di…
-
Barr v. Pantry Pride, 518 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…achieved by Mr. Sicking was a quantifiable amount by the time of the fee hearing. On that basis,’ we distinguish this case from Santa Rosa Marble, Inc. v. Ubieta, 436 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), wherein this Court, relying on Matera v. Gautier, 133 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1961), reversed that portion of the order reserving jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees based on future wage-loss benefits. In so holding, we quoted Matera for the proposition that ‘"[t]o award an indeterminable fee on the basis of future com…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence