LUCERNE HOTEL, EMPLOYER, AND BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE CARRIER, PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
ANN L. CHERRY, EMPLOYEE AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONER
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 petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Florida Industrial Commission's order. The court also denied a cross-petition and a related attorney's fee request, but granted a separate attorney's fee for the employee's counsel.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law.
“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.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion after reviewing the case materials.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer and its insurance carrier petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order from the Florida Industrial Commission. The employee and…
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 28, 1966.
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.
The petition is therefore denied. The cross-petition is denied; the petition for attorney’s fee in connection with cross-petition is denied. The petition for attorney’s fee filed by Respondent Ann L. Cherry in connection with defense against petition for writ of certiorari is granted in the amount of $250.00.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.