PHILLIP PUGH, CROSS-PETITIONER,
v.
ARCHIE DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, CROSS-RESPONDENTS; ARCHIE DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, PETITIONERS, V. PHILLIP PUGH AND THE 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 both the employer's petition and the employee's cross-petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Industrial Commission's order. The court also awarded the employee's attorneys a fee for successfully resisting the employer's petition.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, both the employer's petition and the employee's cross-petition for a writ of certiorari are denied.
“We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.”
This quote indicates the court's decision to proceed without oral argument, suggesting a preliminary assessment of the case's merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer sought review of an order from the Florida Industrial Commission, and the employee-claimant sought review of the same order via a cross-p…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari the employer seeks review of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date November 17, 1965.
The employee-claimant seeks review of the same order by cross-petition for writ of certiorari.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
*460The petition and the cross-petition are therefore denied.
The claimant is awarded a fee of $100 for the services of his attorneys in successfully resisting the petition for writ of cer-tiorari.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ'., concur.