INTERNATIONAL SHIP REPAIR AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREAU EMIG AND DONNA LEE EMIG, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Vi) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal from a nonfinal order determining that it is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law. The appellant contends that the trial court made its determination based on section 905(a) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act1 rather than section 440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law.2 The appellees argue that this appeal should be dismissed because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) is limited by Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1992), to include only those orders denying immunity under section 440.11. We disagree and interpret the rule to include the order under review.
Motion denied.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . 33 U.S.C.S. §§ 901-950 (Law Co-op. Supp. 1992).
. §§ 440.01-.60, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. Baker, 632 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…e order reviewed was an order denying summary judgment. See also Holmes County Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 630 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Winn Dixie Stores v. Parks, 620 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); International Ship Repair & Marine Sens. v. Emig, 611 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). It seems somewhat unusual to treat an order denying a motion as an order “determining” an issue. At least in some instances, such orders may merely establish that the trial court currently views the issue of immunity to involve u…
Authorities Cited
- Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992)