Withrow v. Perron

Supreme Court of Florida

Withrow v. Perron

172 So. 2d 820, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3316

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 17, 1965·No. No. 33896·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date November 18, 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, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, 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 November 18, 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, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

Withrow v. Perron, 172 So. 2d 820, 1965 Fla. LEXIS 3316 (Fla. 1965).

Pincite

172 So. 2d 820 (Withrow v. Perron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related