ROYAL BAKING COMPANY, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS.
v.
STEVEN SAMERGEDES ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Fla. | 1964-09-09
No. 33491
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ-, concur.
170 So. 2d 842 Florida Supreme Court (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida *843Industrial Commission bearing date April 28, 1964.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ-, concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Knight v. Munday Plastering Co., 220 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1968)
    …erits. The respondent Commission’s interpretation of Rule No. 3, supra, was clearly announced after detailed consideration in Samergedes v. Royal Baking Company, Inc., Dec. No. 2-1355 (1964), cert. denied, Royal Baking Company, Inc., v. Samergedes, 170 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1964). There the deputy sustained a Rule No. 11 Motion to dismiss on Rule No. 3 “failure to prosecute grounds” even though no “first hearing” had been set. His order of dismissal was reversed. The Full Commission held: “We are constrained to h…
    1 / 2

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw