GUNTER

v.

GREEN

Citator

Cited By

• Airey v. Wal-Mart/Sedgwick, 24 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
  …ed upon, or dismissed upon motion.... ‘Passage of time does not itself terminate the pen-dency of a proceeding.’ ” Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, S., Inc., 247 So. 2d 35, 40 (Fla.1971) (quoting from Munsinger v. Edge, 1 F.C.R. 103, cert. denied, 85 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1955)). Accord Strack v. Executive Motors, Inc., 500 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (citing Turner). There is, likewise, no dispute about the fact that the petition remained pending, and that claimant had not received the benefits sought.…
• Joffre E. Turner v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, 247 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1971)
  …s filed, it stays pending until withdrawn by claimant, or acted upon, or dismissed upon motion of either the Commission or the employer under Rule of Procedure No. 11. As the Commission stated in Munsinger v. Edge, 1 F.C.R. 103 (1955), cert. denied, 85 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1955): “Passage of time does not itself terminate the pendency of a proceeding.” This being so, the Judge of Industrial Claims correctly decided below that since Mrs. Turner’s letter constituted a claim, it remained pending (since not dismissed…
• Knight v. Munday Plastering Co., 220 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1968)
  …before the time for submitting evidence would begin to run and also before the eight month overall limitation on the taking of testimony could be started. In Munsinger v. Edge, 1 FCR 103 (1953), cert. denied, Edge v. Florida Industrial Commission, 85 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1955), the Commission held that the “passage of time does not of itself terminate the pendency of a proceeding.” It reversed an order of a deputy who dismissed a claim which had not been prosecuted for five years after it was filed. After annou…