RONALD EDWARD DUKES, PETITIONER,

v.

LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Cantor v. Robert Cochran & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966)
  …t cf the evidence. The petition for certiorari filed in this court charges that the Full Commission substituted its own findings for those of the deputy. We do not so find. This, rather, is a case like Toney Builders, Inc. v. Hud-dleston, Fla.1963, 149 So. 2d 38, wherein the decision of the controversy depends not on disputed facts but upon the legal relationship that certain undisputed facts engendered. One of these facts is that in March of 1962, after claimant had been engaged in helping petitioners’ cu…
• Hilldrup Transfer & Storage of New Smyrna Beach, Inc. v. State, 447 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
  …to the tax. The facts involved here are essentially undisputed. The decision therefore depends upon the legal relationship that the undisputed facts engender. Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966), citing Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, 149 So. 2d 38 (Fla.1963). The question presented on appeal is whether the Division correctly concluded that a master-servant, as [*416] opposed to an independent contractor, relationship existed here. We reverse. Hilldrup is in the moving and storage business. I…
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Huwer, 508 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
  …the Act as an employee of Wackenhut. See Gulfstream Land & Devel. Corp. v. Wilkerson, 420 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla.1982); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56, 59-60 (Fla.1973); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1972); Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, 149 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla.1963). Third, the trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in refusing to allow FP & L to assert the above affirmative defense because FP & L was not entitled to the proposed defense as a matter of law. See Davis v. Sun First…