BELFORD TRUCKING COMPANY AND SECURITY MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
JOHN EDWARD ZIMMERMAN ET AL., RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONERS
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 petitions for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Florida Industrial Commission's order. The court granted a petition for attorney's fees for the respondents but denied a similar petition for the cross-petitioners.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law. Attorney's fees were granted to the respondents but denied to the cross-petitioners.
“Our consideration of the petition, the cross-petitions, 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 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Industrial Commission issued an order on May 28, 1968. Belford Trucking Company and its insurer, Security Mutual Casualty Company, along w…
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.
By petition and cross-petitions for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 28, 1968.
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, 32 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition, the cross-petitions, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
The petition and cross-petitions are therefore denied.
The petition for allowance of respondents’ attorney’s fees is hereby granted in the amount of $250.00, to be divided equally. The petition for allowance of an attorney’s fee on the cross-petition is denied.
CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and HOPPING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mize v. Cnty. OF Seminole, 229 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1969)….Tucker v. Seminole County, 214 So. 2d 745 (4th Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). . Fla.Const. art. XVII, § 4; Ammer-man, et al. v. Markham, Tax Assessor, et al., 222 So. 2d 423 (Supreme Court), Opinion filed May 7, 1969; In Re: Advisory Opinion to Governor, 217 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1968). . The question of whether the issuance of these bonds was affected by the adoption of the 1968 Constitution was raised during the oral argument. The respective parties were requested to file briefs on the question. Such briefs have been…
-
Freeman Bateman v. State, 238 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1970)…traight line to a point three leagues from the coastline of Florida; thence northerly and westerly three leagues distant from the coastline * * [Emphasis added.] . Fla.Const. art. XVII, § 4 (1885 as amended); In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 217 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1968). . 178 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1965). For general discussion of related boundary questions, see A. Gross, The Maritime Boundaries of the States, 64 Mich,L.Rev. 639 (1966), and D. Cowan, Era of Militant Fishing Jurisdiction — A Study of the Flori…