LARRY BAILEY, PETITIONER,
v.
CARD ROOFING COMPANY, AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND 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 reviewed an order from the Florida Industrial Commission, ultimately denying a petition for certiorari. The court affirmed the Commission's remand for further proceedings but clarified that the Deputy Commissioner could still receive additional testimony if deemed necessary.
The Full Commission's order remanding the cause for further proceedings was proper. The remand does not preclude the Deputy Commissioner from exercising discretion to receive additional testimony if necessary.
“However, we would add and make it clear that such remand does not preclude the Deputy Commissioner from exercising quasi-judicial discretion to receive additional testimony,, if he deems it necessary to comply with the mandate.”
This quote clarifies the court's interpretation of the Industrial Commission's remand order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought review of an order from the Florida Industrial Commission. The Commission had remanded the cause for further proceedings. The Su…
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 we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date September 6, 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 the order of the Full Commission in remanding the cause for further proceedings consistent with its opinion is proper. However, we would add and make it clear that such remand does not preclude the Deputy Commissioner from exercising quasi-judicial discretion to receive additional testimony,, if he deems it necessary to comply with the mandate. We view this remand to be governed by the principles announced by us in Tampa Electric Company v. Crosby, Fla., 168 So.2d 70.
The petition is therefore denied.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tampa Elec. Co. & Globe Indem. Co. v. William A. Crosby & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 168 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1964)