CITY OF MIAMI, PETITIONER,
v.
FREDERICK W. FUZZARD, RESPONDENT
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 motion to dismiss a petition for writ of certiorari but deferred ruling on one ground, requiring further briefing and oral argument on whether the Florida Industrial Commission should be a party.
The Court deferred ruling on the issue, indicating it requires further consideration and briefing.
“Said motion is denied as to grounds 2, 3 and 4. Ruling is deferred on ground 1, viz.: "The Florida Industrial Commission is required to be made a party respondent hereto, yet they are not parties to this proceeding (FS 440.27[1])."”
This quote establishes the court's partial denial of the motion to dismiss and highlights the specific issue that remains for consideration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent filed a motion to dismiss or quash a petition for writ of certiorari. The motion raised four grounds. The Court denied three grounds bu…
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 Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause was considered by the Court upon the respondent’s motion to dismiss or quash the petition for writ of certiorari. Said motion is denied as to grounds 2, 3 and 4. Ruling is deferred on ground 1, viz.: “The Florida Industrial Commission is required to be made a party respondent hereto, yet they are not parties to this proceeding (FS 440.27[1]).”
This cause is hereby set for oral argument before this Court Thursday, May 6, 1965. Thirty minutes to the side are allowed for such argument. The parties are requested at the argument on the merits hereby fixed to be prepared to and to argue the question raised by the above quoted ground of the motion to quash and, in the meantime, to file briefs in this Court thereon. The respondent shall file his brief within ten days hereafter and the petitioner shall have ten days for a reply.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.