Seifried v. Shell Lumber & Hardware Company

619 So. 2d 526, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669, 1993 WL 217197
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 22, 1993·No. No. 93-281·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Because the appeals referee’s determination that appellant was not guilty of misconduct, see Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, 354 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), was supported by competent evidence, it was unjustifiably reversed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission on the basis of its own conclusion that he was. See Cheung v. Executive China Doral, Inc., 617 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Iglesias v. Eagle Nat’l Bank of Miami, 598 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to afford Seifried the unemployment benefits claimed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN, J., concur.

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

Seifried v. Shell Lumber & Hardware Company, 619 So. 2d 526, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669, 1993 WL 217197 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

619 So. 2d 526 (Seifried v. Shell Lumber & Hardware Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Microfile, Inc. v. Williams
425 So. 2d 1218 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Varig Brazil. Air. v. Fla. Dept of C., Etc.
354 So. 2d 921 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
570 So. 2d 1106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Iglesias v. Eagle National Bank of Miami
598 So. 2d 262 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Cheung v. Executive China Doral, Inc.
617 So. 2d 403 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)