DADE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY AND BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARY O. KELLER, MARY LEE KING, 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 writ of certiorari regarding a compensation award, finding the issue moot pending further proceedings in a companion case. The court allowed petitioners to reapply for the writ after the companion case concluded.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice, as the issue is currently moot pending the outcome of further proceedings in a companion case.
“Their questions of course become moot if the first wife, in the further proceedings before the deputy commissioner for which the cause was remanded, fails to destroy the presumption of the validity of decedent's marriage to the second claimant, Mary Lee King.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the current issue potentially moot.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer and its insurance carrier petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a compensation award to the decedent's first wife. This case i…
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 Presumption Of Marriage Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to King v. Keller, Fla., 117 So.2d 726. In this case the employer and its carrier question the award of compensation to decedent’s first wife, Mary O. Keller. Their questions of course become moot if the first wife, in the further proceedings before the deputy commissioner for which the cause was remanded, fails to destroy the presumption of the validity of decedent’s marriage to the second claimant, Mary Lee King.
For this reason, we hereby deny this petition for writ of certiorari but with express permission to the petitioners here to reapply, should they so desire, for such writ following the conclusion of the further proceedings ordered in the companion case.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (108 total)
-
Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)…of Fort Lauderdale, 183 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1966), and Mathews v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 89 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1956), we have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1975); Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1960). We therefore grant the petition for review for the purpose of expunging language in the district court of appeal opinion that directly conflicts with our earlier decisions. See Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Grounds, 332 So. 2d 13…1 / 2
-
Benefield v. State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1964)…ugh both involve substantially the same controlling facts, identical rules of law were applied to each in such a way as to produce opposite results. That is sufficient to activate this court’s jurisdiction. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1960, 117 So. 2d 731. If there are those who do not think we have jurisdiction on this theory, certainly we have it on the theory that the decision of the district court of appeal herein has generated confusion and instability among the precedents rendering the law “un…
-
State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976)…e. The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur. . See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960). . This Latin phrase means literally “the body of the crime.” It is regularly used in appellate decisions to mean the legal elements necessary to show that a crime was committed. . 314 So. 2d at 155-56. . Sciortino, above. See also, L…
Previewing 3 of 108 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E. H. Spach in Bankr. of the Ests. of Earl Albert Kleb & Clarence Charles Gehm v. Kleb, 117 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1959)
- King v. Keller, 117 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1960)