WINFRED EARL POOLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
THE MONSANTO COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
WINFRED EARL POOLEY, PETITIONER,
THE MONSANTO COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS
219 So. 2d 687
Florida Supreme Court (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date August 20, 1968.
After oral argument and upon consideration of the petition, the briefs, and the record, we conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.
The petition for attorneys’ fees filed by the attorney for the Petitioner is also denied.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 608 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…of property. See, e.g., Northcutt v. State Rd. Dep’t, 209 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (road construction on adjacent property not a taking requiring just compensation because it involved no physical invasion of subject property), writ discharged, 219 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1969). In considering the second category, it is obvious that subsections 337.241(2) and (3) did not take “all economically beneficial or productive use” 10 of every parcel of land subject to this reservation. Undoubtedly, many parcels inside…
-
Fla. Audubon Soc'y v. Nat Ratner, 497 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…destruction or use of the property by the District. Cf. North-cutt v. State Road Department, 209 So. 2d 710, 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (no action for [*676] inverse condemnation will lie absent actual destruction of property or use), cert, discharged, 219 So. 2d 687 (Fla.1969). Furthermore, the complained-of taking was caused by the presence of canals for which the District purchased easements. Because there was no substantial violation of any restrictions in the easement, there was no taking. Cf. Kendry v. Sta…
-
Travis v. Dep't OF Transp., 333 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…fluous. (See Weir v. Palm Beach County, [*87] Sup.Ct.Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 865; Poe v. State Road Department, Fla.App. 1st, 1961, 127 So. 2d 898; and Northcutt v. State Road Department, Fla.App. 3rd, 1968, 209 So. 2d 710, rehearing denied Sup.Ct.Fla., 219 So. 2d 687.) AFFIRMED. SMITH, J., and HODGES, JOHN G., Associate Judge, concur.…