FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF CONSERVATION, AND THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ALLEN J. SANDERS, AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 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 a petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Industrial Commission's order. The court also granted a motion for attorney's fees for the respondent.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law.
“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 court's decision was legally sound.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida State Board of Conservation and its insurance company petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order from the Florida Industrial C…
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 Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 6, 1968.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10 e, 32 F.S.A.
We have, however, heard oral argument on a motion to quash the petition. Actually, this motion and argument were unnecessary. Respondent could have accomplished the same result by a prompt filing of his reply brief on the merits. The motion to quash was in effect a response on the merits and in order to conclude this matter we have treated it as such. However, we wish to discourage the practice of filing unnecessary motions of this type.
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 motion for an attorney’s fee for respondent Sanders is granted in the amount of $250.00.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.