Armstrong v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
886 So. 2d 246, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15153, 2004 WL 2309971
Opinion
DISMISSED. See Raysor v. Raysor, 706 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(“one who foregoes the opportunity to personally deliver time critical documents to the clerk, and instead elects to entrust those documents to postal authorities or some other delivery mechanism, does so at his or her own peril”); Coca Cola Foods v. Cordero, 589 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding that timely filing of a notice of appeal is required and that timely mailing will not suffice).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Armstrong v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 886 So. 2d 246, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15153, 2004 WL 2309971 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).
886 So. 2d 246 (Armstrong v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Raysor v. Raysor
706 So. 2d 400 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Coca Cola Foods v. Cordero
589 So. 2d 961 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)