McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida

139 So. 2d 435, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1962

DocketNo. 61-459

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 So. 2d 435 (McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida) 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

McAdams v. Armored Car Service of Florida, 139 So. 2d 435, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the same order which was the subject of the appeal in Case No. 61-435, Workmen’s Compensation Lienor, Home Indemnity Company, as carrier, and Tri-City Septic Tank Company, as employer v. McAdams, Armored Car Service of Florida and Wesley Carl Knight, Fla.App., 139 So.2d 433. The order appealed allotted to the workmen’s compensation lienor an amount pursuant to subsection 3 of § 440.39, Fla.Stat.,F.S.A. as that section existed prior to amendment in 1959. The employee-plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded the workmen’s compensation lienor, has prosecuted this appeal.

The employee contends that having correctly decided that the insurance carrier could not recover under subsection 4 of § 440.39, Fla.Stat.,F.S.A., the trial judge then incorrectly determined that the carrier had rights under subsection 3. In appeal No. 61-435 we held that the trial judge correctly found that subsection 3 was applicable; thereby affirmance of the same order is required upon this appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the same order which was the subject of the appeal in Case No. 61-435, Workmen’s Compensation Lienor, Home Indemnity Company, as carrier, and Tri-City Septic Tank Company, as employer v. McAdams, Armored Car Service of Florida and Wesley Carl Knight, Fla.App., 139 So.2d 433. The order appealed allotted to the workmen’s compensation lienor an amount pursuant to subsection 3 of § 440.39, Fla.Stat.,F.S.A. as that section existed prior to amendment in 1959. The employee-plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded the workmen’s compensation lienor, has prosecuted this appeal.

The employee contends that having correctly decided that the insurance carrier could not recover under subsection 4 of § 440.39, Fla.Stat.,F.S.A., the trial judge then incorrectly determined that the carrier had rights under subsection 3. In appeal No. 61-435 we held that the trial judge correctly found that subsection 3 was applicable; thereby affirmance of the same order is required upon this appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 2d 435, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcadams-v-armored-car-service-of-florida-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack