VIRGIL JENKINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
J. M. MONTGOMERY ROOFING CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ROBERT F. COLEMAN OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS; J. M. MONTGOMERY ROOFING CO., INC., AND ROBERT F. COLEMAN OF FLORIDA, INC., CROSS-PETITIONERS, V. VIRGIL JENKINSON AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, CROSS-RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied both the petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Florida Industrial Commission's order. The court did grant a petition for attorney's fees for Virgil Jenkinson.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, both the petition and cross-petition for certiorari are denied.
“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.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the lower commission's order was legally correct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirgil Jenkinson petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Co., Inc., and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date December 17, 1965.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and if 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. The cross-petition is also denied.
The petition for attorney’s fee filed by Petitioner and Cross-Respondent Virgil Jenkinson is granted in the amount of $250.-00. The petition for attorney’s fee filed by Petitioner Virgil Jenkinson is denied.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.