FRANK T. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
TROPICAL ROOFING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the motion of appellees to quash the interlocutory appeal pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.9, Florida Appellate Rules, upon the ground that the same is frivolous and filed only for the purpose of delay, and it appearing to the Court from an examination of the record that the said motion is appropriate and seasonably made and that it is manifest that the questions raised on appeal are without substantial merit and need no further argument;
It is, accordingly, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the motion to quash the appeal in this cause be and the same is hereby granted and the appeal is quashed.
KANNER, C. J., and PLEÜS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. AETNA Ins. Co., 246 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1971)…88 (Fla.1939). . 74 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1954). .1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation, § 48.10 (1967). . Rainbow Poultry Co. v. Ritter Rental System, Inc., 140 So. 2d 101 (Fla.1962) ; Alter Sales Co. v. Sykes, 190 So. 2d 746 (Fla.1966) ; Maige v. Cannon, 98 So. 2d 399 (Fla.App.1st 1957) ; Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So. 2d 21 (Fla.App.4th 1968). . Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla.App.4th 1968) : “In Rainbow Poultry Company v. Ritter Rental System, Inc., Fla.1962, 140 So. 2d 101, 103, the Cou…
-
Avery W. Crawford and Lula Belle Crawford v. Fla. Steel Corp., 478 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…il Company, 215 So. 2d at 23, n. 2. Instead, courts have cautioned that a second corporation’s control of minor details of a work situation should not be accepted as sufficient to form a consensual relationship of employer-employee. Maige v. Cannon, 98 So. 2d 399, 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). We see no difference, from a tort-liability standpoint, whether Crawford was a borrowed servant of Florida Steel, or an employee of joint employers. [*861] The trial court here reasoned that if Crawford was not a borrowed s…
-
Hamilton v. Shell OIL Co., 215 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…yment to his employees of the • compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16. * * * ” Under this language the relationship of employer-employee is essential to liability for workmen’s compensation benefits, Maige v. Cannon, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 399, 401. From the portion of the trial court’s Order of Dismissal quoted above, it appears that the trial court decided that such a relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant because of the allegations in the amended complaint that th…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence