Williamsen v. Kangaroo, Inc.

608 So. 2d 586, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12658, 1992 WL 353360
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 1, 1992
DocketNo. 92-2080
StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 586 (Williamsen v. Kangaroo, Inc.) 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
Williamsen v. Kangaroo, Inc., 608 So. 2d 586, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12658, 1992 WL 353360 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Judge of Compensation Claims has certified that a transcript from the final hearing is unavailable and that the parties are unable to reconstruct the record. Accordingly, the final order is vacated and the cause is remanded for a hearing de novo. Arnold Lumber Co. v. Harris, 469 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

JOANOS, C.J., and WIGGINTON and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Arnold Lumber Company v. Harris
469 So. 2d 786 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
608 So. 2d 586, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12658, 1992 WL 353360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamsen-v-kangaroo-inc-fladistctapp-1992.