Case Name: Willie L. EAST, Appellant, v. PENSACOLA TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Robert Barnhill, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Jeffrey A. Cramer, Esq., and Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-05-21
Citations: 384 So. 2d 159
Docket Number: No. 79-1554
Parties: Willie L. EAST, Appellant, v. PENSACOLA TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Robert Barnhill, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Jeffrey A. Cramer, Esq., and Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Appellees.
Judges: HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 384
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Willie L. EAST, Appellant, v. PENSACOLA TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Robert Barnhill, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Jeffrey A. Cramer, Esq., and Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Appellees.
No. 79-1554.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 21, 1980.
Joseph J. Finkelstein of Pelzner, Schwe-dock & Finkelstein, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Larry I. Gramovot of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellees Pensacola Tractor & Equipment Co., Inc., Robert Barnhill and Federated Mut. Ins. Co.
David J. Kadyk and Ted R. Manry, III of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellees Jeffrey A. Cramer and Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

Opinion:
OTT, Judge.
The trial court entered summary judgment for appellees in this case on a theory that the charging allegations of appellant's complaint had been adjudicated adversely to him in a previous proceeding before the Industrial Relations Commission. Appellant's attack on that judgment challenged the trial court's reliance on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The issues on this appeal became moot when the First District Court of Appeal reversed the IRC order on which appellees relied to defeat the instant suit. The parties have now stipulated that the summary judgment may be reversed.
Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of appellees is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.