Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.

471 So. 2d 60, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1109, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13846

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1985

DocketNo. AT-463

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 471 So. 2d 60 (Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.) 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

Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 471 So. 2d 60, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1109, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13846 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

ON HEARING EN BANC

PER. CURIAM.

The court on its own motion considered this case en banc, Fla.R.App.P. 9.331, after a majority vote that hearing en banc was necessary under the rule, prior to release of a proposed panel opinion. Upon en banc consideration the court was evenly divided as to disposition of the appeal, Judges Mills, Booth, Wentworth, Joanos, Thompson and Barfield voting to affirm the deputy on the grounds that the claim of Leonard H. Daniel is barred by the limitations provision of Florida Statutes, § 440.19(1), and Judges Ervin, Smith, Shivers, Wiggin-ton, Nimmons and Zehmer voting to reverse. The effect of the vote is to affirm the deputy, Rule 9.331(a), supra.

ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS, BOOTH, SMITH, SHIVERS, WENTWORTH, JOA-NOS, THOMPSON, WIGGINTON, NIM-MONS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

ON HEARING EN BANC

PER. CURIAM.

The court on its own motion considered this case en banc, Fla.R.App.P. 9.331, after a majority vote that hearing en banc was necessary under the rule, prior to release of a proposed panel opinion. Upon en banc consideration the court was evenly divided as to disposition of the appeal, Judges Mills, Booth, Wentworth, Joanos, Thompson and Barfield voting to affirm the deputy on the grounds that the claim of Leonard H. Daniel is barred by the limitations provision of Florida Statutes, § 440.19(1), and Judges Ervin, Smith, Shivers, Wiggin-ton, Nimmons and Zehmer voting to reverse. The effect of the vote is to affirm the deputy, Rule 9.331(a), supra.

ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS, BOOTH, SMITH, SHIVERS, WENTWORTH, JOA-NOS, THOMPSON, WIGGINTON, NIM-MONS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 60, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1109, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-holmes-lumber-co-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack