Blythe v. Blythe

Supreme Court of Florida

Blythe v. Blythe

206 So. 2d 389

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1968

DocketNo. 36372

StatusPublished

This text of 206 So. 2d 389 (Blythe v. Blythe) 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

Blythe v. Blythe, 206 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workmen’s compensation matter we have heard oral argument and considered the records and briefs. We find that the order of the Florida Industrial Commission entered on March 14, 1967, comports with the essential requirements of the law. The writ of certiorari is, therefore, denied. The petitioner’s motion for an attorney’s fee in this Court is also denied.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workmen’s compensation matter we have heard oral argument and considered the records and briefs. We find that the order of the Florida Industrial Commission entered on March 14, 1967, comports with the essential requirements of the law. The writ of certiorari is, therefore, denied. The petitioner’s motion for an attorney’s fee in this Court is also denied.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 2d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blythe-v-blythe-fla-1968.