Stewart v. Department of Corrections

561 So. 2d 15, 1990 WL 58593
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 9, 1990
Docket89-3129
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 561 So. 2d 15 (Stewart v. Department of Corrections) 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
Stewart v. Department of Corrections, 561 So. 2d 15, 1990 WL 58593 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

561 So.2d 15 (1990)

Lewis STEWART, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Public Employees Relations Commission (Interested Party), Appellees.

No. 89-3129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1990.

*16 Robert L. Saylor of Saylor & Lerman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Lynne T. Winston, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Corrections, Tallahassee, for appellee — Dept. of Corrections.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse. Where appellant's attorney filed a notice of appeal to the Public Employees Relations Commission one business day after the time limitation had run, the trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling and allowing appellant to pursue the appeal of his dismission of employment.

In Machules v. Dept. of Admin., 523 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court held that equitable tolling focuses on the plaintiff's excusable ignorance of the limitations period and on the lack of prejudice to the defendant. It concluded that "equitable tolling, unlike estoppel, does not require active deception or employer misconduct, but focuses rather on the employee with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights."

In the instant case, appellant's attorney filed one day late, which neither party alleged caused the agency prejudice. Therefore, reasonably prudent regard for appellant's rights dictates that the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied, and that the appellant be allowed to pursue his appeal.

REVERSED.

WALDEN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA v. Hillman
906 So. 2d 1094 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
O'Donnell's Corp. v. Ambroise
858 So. 2d 1138 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Vantage Healthcare v. Health Care Admin.
687 So. 2d 306 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Abusalameh v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG.
627 So. 2d 560 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Environmental Resource Assoc. v. Dgs
624 So. 2d 330 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
General Motors Corp. v. Gus Machado Buick-GMC, Inc.
581 So. 2d 637 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
561 So. 2d 15, 1990 WL 58593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-1990.