Smith-Ernst, Inc. v. Odom

289 So. 2d 393
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 17, 1974·No. No. 44136·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review on writ of certiora-ri a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission which affirmed an Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims awarding the claimant attorney’s fees for additional benefits being paid by the employer/carrier. Having heard oral argument, we find the Industrial Relations Commission properly affirmed the Judge of Industrial Claims under the particular circumstances of this case on the authority of Ford v. Cunningham-Limp Co., 203 So.2d 326 (Fla.1967), and Boyd v. Southeastern Utilities Service Co., 172 So.2d 817 (Fla.1965). We find no departure from the essential requirements of law.

... According, the writ of certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents.

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

Smith-Ernst, Inc. v. Odom, 289 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1974).

289 So. 2d 393 (Smith-Ernst, Inc. v. Odom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Honeywell, Inc. v. Scully
289 So. 2d 393 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)