IN THE INTEREST OF P.A.P., J.P. AND J.A.P., EACH A CHILD. JEANINE PYRITZ LUKACH, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ANDREW PYRITZ, APPELLEE
IN THE INTEREST OF P.A.P., J.P. AND J.A.P., EACH A CHILD. JEANINE PYRITZ LUKACH, APPELLANT,
JAMES ANDREW PYRITZ, APPELLEE
512 So. 2d 1016
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the dependency order appealed in Case No. BO-174. Such order superseded the earlier custody modification order which is the subject of the appeal in Case No. BM-280. Affirmance of the dependency order renders moot the appeal in BM-280. Accordingly, the appeal in the latter case is hereby dismissed.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tessan Swartz v. McDONALD'S Corp., 788 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2001)…as regular and frequent, the employer’s request was not sudden, the burden of the request was minor in light of his route home, and he had already completed the employer’s request at the time of the accident. In New Dade Apparel, Inc. v. De Lorenzo, 512 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court held that an injured employee who returned early from vacation to work at the special request of his employer fell within the special errand exception. In determining compensability, the court recognized that irr…
-
Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…work-related motive. To the contrary, where assailants have injured claimants who were at work and working, we have consistently found compensability without evidence of the assailant’s work-related motive. See New Dade Apparel, Inc. v. De Lorenzo, 512 So. 2d 1016, 1017–18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (finding compensability where an unknown pedestrian threw a rock through the car window of an employee who was driving back to work after completing a work errand, causing a crash, whereupon the employee was beaten and r…
-
Allyson Duff v. Vazquez, 544 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ins, 525 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). . Under that rule, Defendant would not be liable for the employee/driver's acts because going to or coming from work is not generally within the scope of employment. See New Dade Apparel, Inc. v. De Lorenzo, 512 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).…