Skip to main content
· 10/5/2011

Siegel v. Rowe

Citations

  • 71 So. 3d 205
  • 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15722
  • 2011 WL 4578543

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling regarding lack of evidence to support a claim and the award of section 57.105(1) fees for abuse of discretion
  • reversing cost award under section 57.105(1) against attorneys as unauthorized but affirming it against the party under section 57.041(1)
  • reversing cost award under section 57.105(1) against attorneys as unauthorized but affirming it against the party under section 57.041(1)
  • “Where, as in this case, the losing party presents competent, substantial evidence in support of the claims or defenses presented and the trial court determines the issues of fact adversely to the losing party based on conflicting evidence, section 57.105(1
  • “Where, as in this case, the losing party presents competent, substantial evidence in support of the claims or defenses presented and the trial court determines the issues of fact adversely to the losing party based on conflicting evidence, section 57.105(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Black, LaROSE, Wallace

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.