Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

859 So. 2d 594, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18002, 2003 WL 22768672

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 25, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-0660

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 859 So. 2d 594 (Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) 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

Nickolan-Barron v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 859 So. 2d 594, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18002, 2003 WL 22768672 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that appellant’s facsimile transaction report, which indicates that appellant’s fax, i.e., her notice of appeal, was successfully transmitted to the Office of Appeals at the Agency for Workforce Innovation within the applicable time frame, constituted sufficient evidence that appellant timely faxed her notice of appeal. See Reynolds v. SV Cent. Dania Props., Inc., 849 So.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Espanioly v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); cf. Mendelsohn v. [595]*595Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 851 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hold that appellant’s facsimile transaction report, which indicates that appellant’s fax, i.e., her notice of appeal, was successfully transmitted to the Office of Appeals at the Agency for Workforce Innovation within the applicable time frame, constituted sufficient evidence that appellant timely faxed her notice of appeal. See Reynolds v. SV Cent. Dania Props., Inc., 849 So.2d 1181, 1182-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Espanioly v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 768 So.2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); cf. Mendelsohn v. [595]*595Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 851 So.2d 208, 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s determination that the appeal was untimely and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

859 So. 2d 594, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18002, 2003 WL 22768672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickolan-barron-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack