Legal Opinion
Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided November 10, 1983No. 62721PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
440 So.2d 1285 (1983)
Michael MAHONEY, Petitioner,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., et al., Respondents.
No. 62721.
Supreme Court of Florida.
November 10, 1983.
Alex Lancaster, Sarasota, for petitioner.
Keith A. Mann of Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons, Quale, Shields & Carlton, Sarasota, for respondents.
2Per curiam
This case is before us to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal which upheld subsection 440.15(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980),[1] against a challenge that this portion of the Workers' Compensation Law violates the access to the courts provision in article I, section 21 of the Florida…
Also in this document: Dissent.
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Acton v. Fort Lauderdale Hosp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1983
- Mahoney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
4Cited by8 opinions
- Sasso v. Ram Property ManagementSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- Rucker v. City of OcalaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
- & SC13-1976 Bradley Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, etc. and City of St. Petersburg, etc. v. Bradley WestphalSupreme Court of Florida · 2016
- Shova v. EllerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- University of Miami v. EcharteDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.