Bertele v. Wilson Roofing Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Bertele v. Wilson Roofing Co.

162 So. 2d 897

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1964

DocketNos. 33099, 33203

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 2d 897 (Bertele v. Wilson Roofing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bertele v. Wilson Roofing Co., 162 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In[898]*898dustrial Commission bearing date October 7, 1963.

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, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition and cross-petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS,' O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In[898]*898dustrial Commission bearing date October 7, 1963.

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, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition and cross-petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS,' O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertele-v-wilson-roofing-co-fla-1964.