H. H. HIPSON, APPELLANT,

v.

J. E. TAYLOR, ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
  …ngful discharge because of an employee’s pursuit of a workers’ compensation claim. It must be assumed that a provision enacted by the legislature is intended to have some useful purpose. Girard Trust Co. v. Tampashores Development Co., 95 Fla. 1010, 117 So. 786 (1928). “Where a statute requires an act to be done for the benefit of another or forbids the doing of an act which may be to his injury, though no action be given in express terms by the statute for the omission or commission, the general rule of…
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. State, 406 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1981)
  …ex rel. Railroad Commiss. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 60 Fla. 465, 54 So. 394, 397 (1911); those “necessary for the exercise of the [right] or the [*1082] performance of the [duty]”, Girard Trust Co. v. Tampashores Development Co., 95 Fla. 1010, 117 So. 786, 788 (1928); those “necessary to accomplish the [stated governmental purpose]”, Hancock v. Karel, 127 Fla. 451, 173 So. 274, 275 (1937), citing Bailey v. Van Pelt, 78 Fla. 337, 82 So. 789, 792 (1919); and those “necessary to carry out the power or r…
• Webb v. Hill, 75 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1954)
  …716, 718; this Court said: “This Subsection 7 of Section 103.101 was enacted for some purpose. We cannot assume that the Legislature would enact a law without some purpose in view. See Girard Trust Co. v. Tampashores Development Co., 95 Fla. 1010, 117 So. 786.” The section in question does not prohibit the doing of any work not set forth in the first budget or preliminary budget. The limitation is “such budget of work”, and that, refers to the “final budget of work” contained in the same paragraph and t…