Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.

471 So. 2d 60, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1109, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13846
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 1985·No. No. AT-463·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

471 So. 2d 60 (Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Clearwater v. Holzhauer
497 So. 2d 694 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.
490 So. 2d 1252 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Eagle Point Mobile Home Estates v. Smith
475 So. 2d 992 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)