TOBY'S 27TH CAFETERIA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
RUBEN GIBSON, 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 considered a motion to dismiss a petition for certiorari, denying dismissal for two grounds but deferring a ruling on a third ground concerning the proper party respondent. The Court set the case for oral argument to address the remaining issue.
The Court deferred ruling on the issue of whether the Florida Industrial Commission must be made a party respondent, indicating it would be addressed after further briefing and oral argument.
“The motion to dismiss as to grounds 2 and 3 is denied. Ruling is deferred as to ground 1 which reads as follows, viz.: "That the Florida Industrial Commission was not made a party respondent to the proceeding as required by the provisions of Section 440.27(1), Florida Statutes."”
This quote outlines the court's immediate decision on the motion to dismiss and identifies the specific issue that requires further consideration.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceToby's 27th Cafeteria, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari. Ruben Gibson, the respondent, filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The motion raised t…
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 Florida Industrial Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was duly considered by the Court on the motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari. The motion to dismiss as to grounds 2 and 3 is denied. Ruling is deferred as to ground 1 which reads as follows, viz.: “That the Florida Industrial Commission was not made a party respondent to the proceeding as required by the provisions of Section 440.27(1), Florida Statutes.”
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 dismiss 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grady I. Henley v. Cent. Truck Lines, Inc., 178 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1965)…ord requires an affirmative response to claimant’s petition because the deputy’s findings and conclusions on this issue are supported by competent substantial evidence and this issue is controlled by our decision in Logan v. Maintenance, Inc., Fla., 173 So. 2d 690. On the question of allowing payment for unskilled nursing services raised by re [*723] spondent’s cross-petition,'there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the deputy’s award of $20.00 per week. Therefore, the petition for…