HARRY VENARDOS, JOSEPH D. REEVES, AND STISSILAOS E. ANDREADIS, DOING BUSINESS AS THE MIDNITE BAR,

v.

JAMES T. VOCELLE, DIRECTOR STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF FLORIDA

Citator

Cited By

• Diamond R. Fertilizer & Seibels Bruce Grp. v. Davis, 567 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
  …an or other authorized representative. The test for determining whether a claimant is incompetent is whether he is so unsound of mind that he could not manage his ordinary affairs. Thomas v. Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co., 160 Fla. 687, 36 So. 2d 377 (1948); Bing v. Ocala Cleat Co., 383 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Contrary to the E/C’s contention, the fact that claimant was allowed to testify at the hearing and was not appointed a guardian does not imply competency of the claimant. There is…
• Aris v. BIG TEN Taxi Corp., 330 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1976)
  …n these matters. The principal argument raised by respondent here is that the Judge erred in adjudging Mr. Aris incompetent, in that there was inadequate evidence to support that finding. In Thomas v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 60 Fla. 687, 36 So. 2d 377 (1948) we defined incompetency for purposes of this statute of limitations to be an inability to manage ordinary business affairs. That definition contemplates more than an ability to satisfy physical needs. Here, as in Thomas, there was expert test…
• Bing v. Ocala Cleat Co., 383 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …s found that the claimant was mentally competent. We reverse. The test for mental incompetency sufficient to defeat applicability of § 440.-19(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), can be found in Thomas v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 160 Fla. 687, 36 So. 2d 377 (1948). Was the claimant so unsound in mind that he could not manage his ordinary affairs of life? The judge of industrial claims’ finding in this regard must be based on competent substantial evidence. U. S. Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.,…