SUNSHINE STEAK SALES ET AL., PETITIONERS-CROSS-RESPODENTS,
v.
MARIE DELGADO ET AL., RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONER

Fla. | 1966-12-07
No. 35218
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
192 So. 2d 481 Florida Supreme Court (1966)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed an order from the Florida Industrial Commission, finding it largely correct but remanding for reconsideration of attorney's fees. The court directed the deputy commissioner to re-evaluate the attorney's services and make a new award if merited, referencing prior case law for guidance.


Holding

The order of the Florida Industrial Commission did not depart from the essential requirements of law, except for the issue of attorney's fees. This specific issue requires reconsideration by the deputy commissioner.


Key Quotes

“we conclude that the order of the full commission displays no departure from the essential requirements of law, with the exception of the question concerning an award of attorney's fees posed by petitioners”

This quote establishes the court's general agreement with the commission's order, while highlighting the specific issue of attorney's fees as problematic.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Florida Industrial Commission issued an order on February 4, 1966. Petitioners sought certiorari review of this order, raising an issue regarding …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

By petition and cross-petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 4, 1966.

After having heard oral argument, and after consideration of the petitions, the record and briefs, we conclude that the order of the full commission displays no departure from the essential requirements of law, with the exception of the question concerning an award of attorney’s fees posed by petitioners, Sunshine Steak Sales and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company. Inasmuch as this cause is remanded by the full commission to the deputy commissioner and the entry of a new Compensation Order the deputy must evaluate the services rendered by the attorney for the claimant and then make a suitable award of attorney’s fees if it is merited. The attention of the deputy is directed to a discussion of the matter of attorney’s fees in Paul Smith Construction Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla., 93 So.2d 735, and John Creighton v. Sears, Roebuck & Company and Florida Industrial Commission (Fla.1966), 190 So.2d 762, for the standards to be used in making an award.

The petition and cross-petition are denied.

It is further ordered that a fee of $350.-00 be awarded to the attorney for the respondents.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw