Holloman v. City of Quincy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holloman v. City of Quincy

664 So. 2d 310, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12632, 1995 WL 722927

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1995

DocketNo. 95-1188

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 664 So. 2d 310 (Holloman v. City of Quincy) 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

Holloman v. City of Quincy, 664 So. 2d 310, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12632, 1995 WL 722927 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the findings of the appeals referee are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) erred in reweighing the evidence and rejecting the referee’s determination that Holloman was not discharged for misconduct connected with work. Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 603 So.2d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shackleton v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 534 So.2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Maynard v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“This court cannot reweigh the evidence that the appeals referee considered in the ease, and neither may the UAC; and as long as there is competent substantial evidence in the record and the referee conducted the proceedings complying with the essential requirements of the law, both should affirm the referee’s decision.”); Verner v. State of Fla., Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 474 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (Where referee’s determination is supported by competent substantial evidence, “it was improper for the UAC to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of [311]*311the referee.”). Accordingly, the order on appeal is

REVERSED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the findings of the appeals referee are supported by competent substantial evidence, the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) erred in reweighing the evidence and rejecting the referee’s determination that Holloman was not discharged for misconduct connected with work. Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 603 So.2d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shackleton v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 534 So.2d 753, 753-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also Maynard v. Florida Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“This court cannot reweigh the evidence that the appeals referee considered in the ease, and neither may the UAC; and as long as there is competent substantial evidence in the record and the referee conducted the proceedings complying with the essential requirements of the law, both should affirm the referee’s decision.”); Verner v. State of Fla., Unemploy. Appeals Comm’n, 474 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (Where referee’s determination is supported by competent substantial evidence, “it was improper for the UAC to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of [311]*311the referee.”). Accordingly, the order on appeal is

REVERSED.

ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 310, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12632, 1995 WL 722927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloman-v-city-of-quincy-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack