Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

166 So. 2d 138, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2543

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 1964

DocketNo. 33349

StatusPublished

This text of 166 So. 2d 138 (Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty 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

Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 166 So. 2d 138, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2543 (Fla. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date January 27,1964.

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

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, 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 Industrial Commission bearing date January 27,1964.

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 2d 138, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-new-amsterdam-casualty-co-fla-1964.