PAUL B. ROSEMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
DESOTO LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY AND INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION, APPELLEES
PAUL B. ROSEMOND, APPELLANT,
DESOTO LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY AND INTEGON INDEMNITY CORPORATION, APPELLEES
452 So. 2d 122
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Judge.
The deputy commissioner correctly denied Rosemond’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. There was competent substantial evidence to support the finding that there was not an employer/employee relationship between Rosemond and DeSo-to Land & Cattle Company.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 504 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…onsent by both the State and defense, polygraph evidence is inadmissible in an adversary proceeding in Florida, Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1984), that consent was obtained herein by stipulation, which is limited to its terms, Brown v. State, 452 So. 2d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). There was no reservation in that stipulation that admissibility was limited to issues of credibility as asserted by Anderson. The argument on this point is therefore without merit. Despite the adduction of the facts outlin…
-
Cardenas v. State, 993 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…any further. Although polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in Florida to prove the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, results of a polygraph examination are admissible when the parties stipulate to admissibility. See Brown v. State, 452 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This claim is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the record attachments, and the trial court erred by summarily denying it. Fifth, the appellant claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal by ob…