HomeMy WebLinkAbout0644 supplied), the very language emplayed reveals that the legis-
lature contemplates that a fee based in part on a percentaqe,
is a cognizable factor, even although the resulting fee in
condemnation cases is certain rather than contingent.
On the other hand, the appellant cites several recent
i
cases from other districts which, when compared to the case
at bar, miqht mandate reversal. One such is Manatee County v.
Harbor Ventures, Inc., 305 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2DCA 1975) in
which a$70,000 fee for 135 hours work was found to be ex-
ces~ive although the attorney's efforts resulted in a$300,000
increase in the award.l In Manatee, the court noted that a
fee per hour of $517.00 was too much. Yet another recent case,
from the Third District, is Dade County v. Oolite Rock Company, 3
~
;
311 So.2d 699 (FIa. 3DCA 1975). In Oolite Rock, a fee of ~
$111,700 was awarded for 118 hours work despite the fact
;
that the supportinq expert testimony was challenged by the :
t
~ political subdivision which used an opposing witness who
recommended quantum meruit fees based on $200.00 per hour.
The Third District reversed the award as excessive noting
that the fee was the equivalent of $946.00 per haur. However,
I
~
the hearinq an attorneys fees in Oolite Rock came about because
E of a voluntary dismissal prior to trial. Thus, the litiqation
,
~ was far from over. " ~
As can be seen from the foregoing, there are substantial
fact differences between the two cases discussed in the pre-
ceding paragraph and the case now before us. Notably, the fee
here is $340.00 per hour, vis a vis $946.00 and $517.00, and -
~ the instant suit involved a full blown trial brouaht to a final
~ conclusion at that level. r
~
~
- Notwithstanding, we are aware that compensation at the
x
~ rate of $340.00 per hour is mind bogglinq to most Americans,
~
~ w
1
Note however, in Manatee, the case did not go to trial and
~ the value was arrived
at by stipulation.
~r
~
~ -3-
~
~
aooK 282 PacE ~36
~
_ ~