Siegel v. Rowe

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).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lana v. Assimakopoulos-Panuthos
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-10-20· cited 7×
• AGATE v. Clampitt
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2012-02-24· cited 3×
• Heldt-Pope v. Thibault
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-11-13· cited 3×
• MacAlister v. Beavis Construction, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-05-27· cited 2×
• Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-11-17· cited 1×
• Casey v. Jensen
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2016-03-23
• Lana v. Assimakopoulous-Panuthos
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-06-23
• LILIANA CADAVID v. DANIEL SAPORTA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2022-08-03