COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE MCFEE 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 granted a motion to dismiss a petition for review because it was not filed within the 60-day statutory period. The court emphasized that filing means actual receipt by the court, not just mailing.
No, the petition was not timely filed. Filing requires actual receipt by the court within the prescribed period, not merely mailing.
“orders of the Industrial Commission are reviewable only upon "a petition filed in this Court within 60 days from the date the order sought to be reviewed is filed in the office of the Industrial Commission."”
This quote states the rule governing the timeliness of petitions for review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge McFee moved to dismiss Columbia Casualty Company's petition for review of an Industrial Commission order. The petition was mailed on the 59th d…
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.
DREW, Chief Justice.
The respondent George McFee has moved to dismiss the petition for review of an order of the Industrial Commission entered April 19, 1955, on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. The petition with airmail postage affixed was deposited in the post office at West Palm Beach before 10:00 a. m., on Friday, June 17, 1955, the fifty-ninth day after entry of the order sought to be reviewed. The petition was not delivered on the next day to the office of this court, but was received here for filing on Monday, June 20, 1955.
Rule 16(1), Supreme Court Rules, 30 F.S.A., provides that orders of the Industrial Commission are reviewable only upon “a petition filed in this Court within 60 days from the date the order sought to be reviewed is filed in the office of the Industrial Commission.” In Azalea Homes, Inc. v. Makela, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 451, a petition to review an order of the Industrial Commission was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on Tuesday, July 6, 1954, to review an order entered 61 days earlier. The petition was dismissed because not filed within 60 days from the time of the entry of the order sought to be reviewed.
Under the holding of the Azalea case and the language of the present rule requiring that the petition be filed “in this court” within 60 days from entry of the order sought to be reviewed, we have no alternative but to grant the motion to dismiss. '
The motion to dismiss is hereby granted.
TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs specially.
ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the petition should be dismissed, because the sixtieth day fell on Saturday. If the sixtieth day had fallen on Sunday, the petition would have been timely filed under the holding of this court in Zeller v. Industrial Research, Inc., Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 616.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…ts v. Westberry, 220 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1969); Overstreet v. Davis, 219 So. 2d 34, 34-35 (Fla.1969); Russom v. State, 109 So. 2d 30, 31-32 (Fla. 1959); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 106 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla.1958); Columbia Cas. Co. v. McFee, 81 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1955); Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304, 307 (Fla.1952); State Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Flinchbaugh v. Bu…
-
Harley v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty., 103 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1958)…of the legislature takes precedence over a general grant or law on the same subject. Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 So. 211, and City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 So. 618.” See also Columbia Casualty Co. v. McFee, Fla., 81 So. 2d 631. And see Cates v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422, 18 So. 2d 11. Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- James Zeller (Employee) v. Indus. Research, 77 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1955)
- Azalea Homes, Inc. v. Esko Makela & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 77 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1955)