Case Name: August BERTELE, Petitioner, v. WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents; WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. August BERTELE, Cross-Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1964-04-15
Citations: 162 So. 2d 897
Docket Number: Nos. 33099, 33203
Parties: August BERTELE, Petitioner, v. WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. August BERTELE, Cross-Respondent.
Judges: DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS,' O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 162
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
August BERTELE, Petitioner, v. WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. WILSON ROOFING COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. August BERTELE, Cross-Respondent.
Nos. 33099, 33203.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 15, 1964.
Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioner and cross-respondent.
Welsh, Cornell, Pyszka & Carlton, Miami, for Wilson Roofing Co. and Bituminous Cas. Co., respondents and cross-petitioners.
Patrick H. Mears and Paul E. Speh, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents and cross-petitioners.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In dustrial Commission bearing date October 7, 1963.
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 and cross-petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition and cross-petition are therefore denied.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS,' O'CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.