MOTEL STEWART AND PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
LORRAINE KELLER AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONER
MOTEL STEWART AND PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
LORRAINE KELLER AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONER
190 So. 2d 339
Florida Supreme Court (1966)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
By petition for writ of certiorari and cross-petition we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 2, 1966.
After oral argument and upon consideration of the petition, the cross-petition, the record and briefs, we conclude there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
CALDWELL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schilpp v. Schilpp, 380 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla.1969); Griffith v. Shamrock Village, 94 So. 2d 854, 857 (Fla.1957): “Where error is made to appear injury is presumed to follow.” Stafford v. Southern Bell Telephone, 179 So. 2d 232, 235 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1965), cert. discharged, 190 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1966): “Generally, where error is clearly made to appear, injury is presumed to follow, unless the record affirmatively shows to the contrary.” . Livingston v. L’Engle, 27 Fla. 502, 8 So. 728, 732 (1891). . Heath v. First National Bank, 213…