Citrus World, Inc. v. Mullins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Citrus World, Inc. v. Mullins

704 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11573, 1997 WL 634088

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1997

DocketNo. 96-4413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 704 So. 2d 128 (Citrus World, Inc. v. Mullins) 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

Citrus World, Inc. v. Mullins, 704 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11573, 1997 WL 634088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all issues raised in this workers’ compensation appeal. In regard to appellant’s point that the judge of compensation claims erred in allowing into evidence the deposition testimony of unauthorized physicians, in violation of section 440.13(5)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), we note that the parties’ stipulation agreed that “all depositions properly noticed and filed of witnesses, either expert or non-expert, will be stipulated into evidence.” No contention is made that the depositions in question were not properly noticed and filed. Moreover, the law is clear that stipulations of the parties are normally binding, and that it is the policy of law to encourage and uphold stipulations in order to minimize litigation and expedite the resolution of disputes. See Spitzer v. Bartlett Bros. Roofing, 437 So.2d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm all issues raised in this workers’ compensation appeal. In regard to appellant’s point that the judge of compensation claims erred in allowing into evidence the deposition testimony of unauthorized physicians, in violation of section 440.13(5)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), we note that the parties’ stipulation agreed that “all depositions properly noticed and filed of witnesses, either expert or non-expert, will be stipulated into evidence.” No contention is made that the depositions in question were not properly noticed and filed. Moreover, the law is clear that stipulations of the parties are normally binding, and that it is the policy of law to encourage and uphold stipulations in order to minimize litigation and expedite the resolution of disputes. See Spitzer v. Bartlett Bros. Roofing, 437 So.2d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 128, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11573, 1997 WL 634088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citrus-world-inc-v-mullins-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack