GLENN A. LUZIER, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 2d DCA | 1975-01-24
No. 74-406
Hobson, A. C. J., Boardman, J., Grimes, J.
307 So. 2d 503 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1975) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Employer's petition for certiorari was denied because the employer failed to file an appeal within the ten-day statutory deadline under Florida Statutes Section 443.07, depriving the appeals referee of jurisdiction.


Holding

An appeals referee lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an unemployment compensation determination when the employer fails to file within the ten-day period prescribed by Florida Statutes Section 443.07.


Headnotes

[1] The ten-day filing deadline for appeals from unemployment compensation determinations under Florida Statutes Section 443.07 is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On November 15, 1973, a claims examiner determined that an employee was not disqualified for unemployment compensation and that the employer was charg…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

On November IS, 1973, respondents’ claims examiner mailed notice to petitioner (employer) that he had determined that claimant (employee) was not disqualified for receiving unemployment compensation and that petitioner was chargeable with his pro rata share of any benefits which might be paid to the claimant. On November 29, 1973, fourteen days later, petitioner filed an appeal to an appeals referee of the Industrial Relations Commission. On December 19, 1973, a hearing was held before the appeals referee. The following day the referee issued his decision by dismissing petitioner’s appeal because of lack of jurisdiction for the reason that petitioner had not filed his appeal within the ten-day time period as provided in Florida Statutes, Section 443.07. On December 28, 1973, petitioner filed an appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. On February 8, 1974, the commission mailed copies of its decision to the respective parties wherein it affirmed the appeals referee. The record indicates that on March 8, 1974, petitioner filed in this court a petition for writ of certiorari.

Petitioner filed a pro se brief, which is directed to the merits of the case only. Respondent’s brief, on the other hand, contends that the appeals referee lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not file his appeal within the time provided in Florida Statutes, Section 443.07. A review of the record shows that the respondent’s position is well taken. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari, for the above-stated reasons, is

Denied.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Luzier v. Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); §§ 443.07(4)(b) and (4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979).…
  • Pelletier v. State, 761 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
    …expired, the UAC dismissed Pelletier’s appeal as untimely. Section 443.151(4)(b) contains no exceptions that would permit the UAC to accept a late-filed appeal. It does not provide a “good cause” exception. See Luzier v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). While there are no statutory exceptions, this court has carved out a limited exception for those cases in which the appellant alleges that the referee’s decision was not mailed to the appellant in a timely fashion, [*414] thus pr…
  • …o section 443.151(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 38E-5.007, the appeals referee was required to dismiss Fryer’s appeal. The statute and rule do not permit any exceptions. See Luzier v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 307 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d [*28] DCA 1975); Leon v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Affirmed. PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw