SUNCOAST CANNING COMPANY AND PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARY FRANCES LA PLANT 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 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, finding no deviation from the essential requirements of law in the Industrial Commission's order. The court also denied a motion to strike the petitioner's brief and awarded attorney's fees to the respondent.
No, the Florida Industrial Commission's order did not deviate from the essential requirements of law. The motion to strike the petitioner's brief was denied.
“In the consideration of respondent's motion to strike petitioner's brief, we have examined the record in this petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission hearing date September 13, 1968.”
This quote establishes the procedural posture of the case, including the petition for certiorari and the motion to strike.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuncoast Canning Company and its insurer petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order from the Florida Industrial Commission dated September…
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
In the consideration of respondent’s motion to strike petitioner’s brief, we have examined the record in this petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission hearing date September 13, 1968. The motion to strike is denied.
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, 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 attorney for the respondent is hereby awarded a fee in the amount of $250.00 for services in this Court.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.