Sullivan v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Florida

Sullivan v. Robertson

177 So. 2d 471, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3019

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 1965

DocketNo. 34284

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 2d 471 (Sullivan v. Robertson) 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

Sullivan v. Robertson, 177 So. 2d 471, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3019 (Fla. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date March' 1, 1965.

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.

THORNAL, 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 Industrial Commission bearing date March' 1, 1965.

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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 2d 471, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-robertson-fla-1965.