CITY OF MIAMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

WILLIAM FARRINGTON, APPELLEE; CITY OF MIAMI, ETC., APPELLANT, V. DONALD R. JOYCE, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd., 462 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
  …ertilizer Co. v. Allison, 81 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1955); Lovingood v. Butler Const. Co., 100 Fla. 1252, 131 So. 126 (1930); Meyer v. Florida Home Finders, 90 Fla. 128, 105 So. 267 (1925); Boley v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 121, 72 So. 644 (1916); Price v. Scharps, 405 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Furlong v. Leybourne, 138 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Ulery v. Asphalt Paving, Inc., 119 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Since a subrogee is the real party in interest and may sue in its own name, Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co.…
• City OF Miami v. Burmeister, 512 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …cuit court held that the City was required to give the preferential points to such employees even though they had had prior promotions. On a consolidated appeal of those cases, this court issued a per curiam af-firmance. City of Miami v. Farrington, 405 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981). After that court interpretation in 1980, the statute was amended again to provide that the preference points “shall apply only to a veteran's first promotion after reinstatement or reemploy…
• City OF Miami v. Sigman, 448 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …court in several cases. In every case the question of entitlement to the statutory preference points was first presented to the Civil Service Board pursuant to its rules. E.g., Yates v. Rezeau, 62 So. 2d 726 (Fla.1952); City of Miami v. Farrington, 405 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981). Appellant challenges the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action on grounds that the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies, citing this court’s opinion in Pushkin v. L…

Authorities Cited

• Yates v. Rezeau, 62 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1952)