Briceno v. Precision Delivery System, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Briceno v. Precision Delivery System, Inc.

752 So. 2d 131, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2227

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-2341

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 131 (Briceno v. Precision Delivery System, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briceno v. Precision Delivery System, Inc., 752 So. 2d 131, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2227 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Juan Briceno appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Juan Briceno appeals the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. In the present case conflicting testimony was offered by the parties. It was the responsibility of the referee to resolve the conflicts, which he did in this case in favor of the employer. See Wallace v. Zahn Dental Co., Inc., 618 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This court is not allowed to overturn the referee’s factual findings, as long as there was competent, substantial evidence at the hearing which supports the findings. See Gonzalez v. Master Flowers, Inc., 605 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As we see no legal basis on which to disturb the referee’s findings, the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 131, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briceno-v-precision-delivery-system-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack