Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Van Doran v. Pope Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided January 4, 1995No. 93-1387Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLawrence, Judge
I cannot agree that deemed earnings is a substantive right for some purposes, but a mere procedural device for other purposes. I nevertheless concur in the result, because reversal is required by precedent set in Wohlgamwth v. Central Maintenance & Welding, 600 So.2d 514, 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Braithwaite v. Department of Transportation, 622 So.2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). I therefore join in the result.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wohlgamuth v. Central Maintenance & WeldingDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- Braithwaite v. Department of TransportationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993