FLAMINGO HAULING & RIGGING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM H. BEVIS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
FLAMINGO HAULING & RIGGING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER,
WILLIAM H. BEVIS ET AL., RESPONDENTS
280 So. 2d 426
Florida Supreme Court (1973)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 44 cases
Opinion of the Court
Our careful consideration and analysis of the petition, the record, briefs and arguments of counsel sustain the view that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent substantial evidence and that, in entering its order, Respondent Commission met the essential requirements of law.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is
Denied.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (43 total)
-
Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)…conduct will render them liable to its penalties. See Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (1934); Zachary v. State, 269 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1972); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1972); Newman v. Carson, 280 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1973); State v. Lindsay, Fla., 284 So. 2d 377, decided October 24, 1973. Such criminal conduct as would give rise to probable cause for a felony arrest must be avoided. Implicit in the language of Section 949.10, to-wit: subsequent arrest on a…
-
Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1981)…extent to which the regulation curtails investment-backed expectations. See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915); Newman v. Carson, 280 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1973); State Plant Board v. Smith, 110 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1959); Varholy v. Sweat, 153 Fla. 571, 15 So. 2d 267 (1943). If the regulation does not promote the health, safety, welfare, or morals of the public, it is not a valid exercise of the poli…
-
State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1980)…tatutory phrases. In determining whether a statutory provision is so vague as to violate due process of law, we must consider whether the provision is so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Newman v. Carson, 280 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1973). The test of vagueness of a statute is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. Washington v. State, 302 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1974), cert. d…
Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence