Parham v. Price
| Decision Date | 30 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 68676,68676 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 62,499 So.2d 830 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 62 Thomas PARHAM, Jr., etc., Petitioner, v. Jack PRICE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal--Certified Great Public Importance; First District--Case No. BG-179.
Richard T. Gordon and Edward P. Jackson, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Ned I. Price of Lewis & Price, Jacksonville, for respondents.
This is a petition to review Parham v. Price, 486 So.2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the district court held that, when a prevailing party has properly pleaded entitlement to attorney fees pursuant to the terms of a contract, the proof of such fees may be presented for the first time after final judgment pursuant to a motion for attorney fees.
The district court certified this holding as presenting a question of great public importance. * We recently answered this question in Finkelstein v. North Broward Hospital District, 484 So.2d 1241 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we approve the district court holding in the instant case.
It is so ordered.
* We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheek v. McGowan Elec. Supply Co.
...ATTORNEY'S FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY? 483 So.2d at 1381. We have recently answered this question in the affirmative in Parham v. Price, 499 So.2d 830 (Fla.1986). Consistent with our decision in Parham, we reject Cheek's contention that under article I, section 22 of the Florida Constitut......
-
West v. West, 87-1719
...in doubt in the light of the more recent decisions in Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 511 So.2d 977 (Fla.1987); Parham v. Price, 499 So.2d 830 (Fla.1986); and Finkelstein v. North Broward Hospital District, 484 So.2d 1241 (Fla.1986). In Cheek, the supreme court held that attorney's fe......
-
Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., s. 92-2041
...pursuant to the terms of a contract, the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a motion filed after final judgment. Parham v. Price, 499 So.2d 830 (Fla.1986). In McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992), the supreme court distinguished a final judgment which reserved jurisdiction to c......