Walker v. Litcey Walker Plastering

Supreme Court of Florida

Walker v. Litcey Walker Plastering

167 So. 2d 865

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1964

DocketNo. 33518

StatusPublished

This text of 167 So. 2d 865 (Walker v. Litcey Walker Plastering) 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

Walker v. Litcey Walker Plastering, 167 So. 2d 865 (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 April 15, 1964.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, suhd. 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 THORNAL, O’CON-NELL, 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 April 15, 1964.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, suhd. 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 THORNAL, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-litcey-walker-plastering-fla-1964.