Case ID: so2d_191/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. DREW, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ruby GRAY, Petitioner, v. STARBIRD LANDSCAPE NURSERY and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
    No. 35606.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Oct. 26, 1966.
    Wieland & Miller, Orlando, for petitioner.
    Charles M. McCarty, Orlando, Patrick H. ■Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 27, 1966.

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.

The petition for attorney’s fees is also denied.

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

DREW, J., dissents.

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

The order of the deputy on this claim contains no finding of fact and no reference to the facts in evidence apart from the conclusion that claimant was excluded from compensation coverage because she “was engaged in agricultural farm labor on the farm of the employer, Starbird Landscape Nursery, and was at said time employed by Starbird Landscape Nursery, who was at said time a bona fide farmer.”

Under our law and decisions I am unable to review the propriety of the Commission’s affirmance of this conclusion in an order totally devoid of substantiating factual findings. I would reverse and remand for the correction of this omission. 
      
      . See Hammersla v. Price et al., Fla.1966, 190 So.2d 765, opinion filed July 13,1966.