JAMES SCOTT, PETITIONER,
v.
NEWPORT INDUSTRIES, INC., 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 initially quashed an order from the Florida Industrial Commission but, upon rehearing and reconsideration, receded from its prior decision and denied the petition for certiorari. The court found it had erred in its initial ruling and withdrew its first opinion.
The Florida Supreme Court held that its initial decision to quash the order was erroneous. Upon reconsideration, the court determined that the petition for certiorari should be denied.
“Upon a reconsideration of the record in the light of briefs filed, we have reached the conclusion that we erred in quashing the order sought to be reviewed.”
This quote explains the court's change of mind after rehearing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a petition for certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition …
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 Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On petition for certiorari to review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission we reviewed the proceedings and quashed the order, with opinion. Subsequently, we granted a petition for rehea'ring and ordered the interested parties to file additional briefs. Upon a reconsideration of the record in the light of briefs filed, we have reached the conclusion that we erred in quashing the order sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, we now recede from what was said in the initial opinion filed in this cause and hold that the petition for certiorari should be denied. Having reached this conclusion, we find that no good purpose would be served by publishing the initial opinion in the cause and are of the view that it should, be withdrawn from the files.
It is so ordered.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.