Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ANTHONY D. DUKE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOEL HOCH ET AL., DEFENDANTS, HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, GARNISHEE-APPELLEE.

PER CURIAM.

By our decision in Duke v. Hoch, et al., 468 F.2d 973 (5th Cir., 1972) we reversed a judgment entered for the insurer-garnishee and remanded for further proceedings. Counsel for the appellant has filed a motion for allowance of attorney fees for his services on appeal, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, F.S.A. The motion is denied without prejudice to application in the trial court for fees allowable under § 627.428, for services on appeal, should the appellant ultimately "prevail." "While he has won a round in this bout, the cause is not yet concluded in his favor, and we think that he has not yet `prevailed' in the statutory sense." Segelstrom v. Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 233 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla.App. 1970). As in Segelstrom, "should final judgment be entered for [appellant] the trial judge may then evaluate the briefs filed in aid of this appeal and determine appropriate compensation." Id. at 646.

Formerly § 627.0127.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUKE v. HOCH
(Feb 20, 1972)