ALPHONSO MCPHERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
DADE TIRE COMPANY, INC.; AUSTIN FORD, INC.; AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY; AND THE 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 an order by the Florida Industrial Commission. The court also denied the petitioner's application for attorneys' fees.
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 states the court's conclusion after reviewing the case materials, forming the basis for its decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to review an order from the Florida Industrial Commission. The respondents filed motions to quash or strike…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The motion of Respondents, Dade Tire Company, American Employers Insurance Company, Austin Ford, Inc. and American Casualty Company, to quash or, in the alternative, to strike Petitioners brief have been duly considered by the Court and such motions are hereby severally denied.
On the merits, however, we have considered the petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date of September 13, 1968, and the briefs of respective counsel.
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.
*39Our 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.
Petitioner’s application for attorneys fees is denied.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.