Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Campbell Chrysler & Plymouth v. Rushing (fladistctapp, 1994-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Campbell Chrysler & Plymouth v. Rushing
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" Wackenhut Corp. v. O'Neal
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rudd Sod Co. v. Reeves, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
discussed Cited "see" Coon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beaubrum v. State, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Jamison v. State, 583 So.2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 591 So.2d 182 (Fla.1991); contra Johnson v. State, 589 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beaubrum v. State, 595 So.2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also Gilmore v. State, 597 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
RUDD SOD COMPANY and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc., Appellants,
v.
Alfred D. REEVES, Appellee.
91-1122.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mar 9, 1992.
595 So. 2d 254
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Susan E. Sewell, Law Office of Joseph E. Smith, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Susan W. Fox, MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Rudd Sod Company and Executive Risk Consultants, Inc. (E/C) raise several issues on appeal of a final order of a judge of compensation claims (JCC). We find that only one has merit: Whether the JCC erred in including the employer's contribution for uniforms in calculating the employee's average weekly wage (AWW). Effective July 1, 1990, the statutory definition of "wages" was amended to, among other things, delete the reference to employer contributions for uniforms. See ch. 91-1, § 1, Laws of Fla.; § 440.02(24), Fla. Stat. (1991). We, therefore, determine that including this item in the calculation was error. The case is, therefore, reversed and remanded for a recalculation of the AWW. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.