FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, INC. AND MILWAUKEE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, PETITIONERS,
v.
GUS JOHNSON AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS; GUS JOHNSON, CROSS-PETITIONER, V. FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, INC. AND MILWAUKEE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, CROSS-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 a petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Florida Industrial Commission's order. The court dispensed with oral argument and awarded a fee to the claimant's attorney.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law.
“Our consideration of the petition and the cross-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 Florida Industrial Commission issued an order on May 19, 1967. The Florida Fertilizer Company and its insurer, along with Gus Johnson, both sought…
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 Florida Industrial Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 19, 1967.
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, 32 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition and the cross-petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.
The attorney for the claimant-respondent on the petition for certiorari is allowed a fee of $250.00 for his services in this Court. Application for fees on the cross-petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.