Shakespeare v. Burdick Construction

Supreme Court of Florida

Shakespeare v. Burdick Construction

168 So. 2d 139

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1964

DocketNo. 33672

StatusPublished

This text of 168 So. 2d 139 (Shakespeare v. Burdick Construction) 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

Shakespeare v. Burdick Construction, 168 So. 2d 139 (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 June 30, 1964.

f 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 brief of the petitioner 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 ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL 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 June 30, 1964.

f 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 brief of the petitioner 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 ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 2d 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shakespeare-v-burdick-construction-fla-1964.