Potter v. Howard Hall Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Potter v. Howard Hall Co.

355 So. 2d 491

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 1978

DocketNo. 76-1984

StatusPublished

This text of 355 So. 2d 491 (Potter v. Howard Hall 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

Potter v. Howard Hall Co., 355 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, petitioner below, brings this appeal from a final judgment, in a workman’s compensation case, denying his petition for a rule nisi. In its final judgment, the trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to enforce the administrative order awarding appellant temporary total compensation payments.

Based on the authority of Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Merritt, 160 So.2d 552 (Fla.2d DCA 1964), and Section 440.24, Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court should have granted appellant’s petition for a rule nisi. See also McCormick v. Messink, 208 So.2d 113 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Therefore, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

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

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, petitioner below, brings this appeal from a final judgment, in a workman’s compensation case, denying his petition for a rule nisi. In its final judgment, the trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to enforce the administrative order awarding appellant temporary total compensation payments.

Based on the authority of Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Merritt, 160 So.2d 552 (Fla.2d DCA 1964), and Section 440.24, Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court should have granted appellant’s petition for a rule nisi. See also McCormick v. Messink, 208 So.2d 113 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Therefore, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 So. 2d 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-howard-hall-co-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack