Williams v. Fort Pierce Tribune & Claims Center

Supreme Court of Florida

Williams v. Fort Pierce Tribune & Claims Center

667 So. 2d 174, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 454, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1422, 1995 WL 523537

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 1995

DocketNo. 82409

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 174 (Williams v. Fort Pierce Tribune & Claims Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Fort Pierce Tribune & Claims Center, 667 So. 2d 174, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 454, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1422, 1995 WL 523537 (Fla. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a district court decision certifying the following questions to be of great public importance:

WHETHER,' IN LIGHT OF THE EVOLVING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS AND PERSONS DELIVERING NEWSPAPERS, THE HOLDING IN MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO. v. KENDALL, 88 So.2d 276 (Fla.1956), REMAINS VIABLE?

IF THE DECISION IN MIAMI HERALD REMAINS VIABLE, IS ITS APPLICATION LIMITED TO TORT ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES, OR DOES IT [175]*175EXTEND AS WELL TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASES?

Fort Pierce Tribune v. Williams, 622 So.2d 1368, 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered both certified questions in the affirmative in the case of Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d 167 (Fla.1995), opinion issued simultaneously herewith. Based upon our decision in Keith, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our holding in Keith.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GRIMES, C.J., dissents.

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