Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in order for a section 768.79 settlement offer to be valid, “an offer from multiple plaintiffs must apportion the offer among the plaintiffs” as provided by rule 1.442(c)(3)
• noting that \section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 are punitive in nature ....\
• providing that “a joint proposal made by . . . such a party need not state the apportionment . . . as to that party”
• holding language of statute must be strictly construed where it is in derogation of common law rule that each party pays its own fees
• stating that section 768.79 and rule 1.442 were to be strictly construed because they are in derogation of the common law rule that each party should pay its own fees
• requiring strict construction of the statute and rule as to apportionment of offer among multiple plaintiffs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).