Case Name: ED HOPSON PRODUCE, INC., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Margaret M. McKEE and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents; ED HOPSON PRODUCE COMPANY, Inc., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Gertrude T. SISK, Tommy Lee Taylor, Betty Lorene Taylor, Jimmy Len Taylor, Mrs. Arnold Reeves and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-09-28
Citations: 190 So. 2d 338
Docket Number: Nos. 35309, 35309-A
Parties: ED HOPSON PRODUCE, INC., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Margaret M. McKEE and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. ED HOPSON PRODUCE COMPANY, Inc., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Gertrude T. SISK, Tommy Lee Taylor, Betty Lorene Taylor, Jimmy Len Taylor, Mrs. Arnold Reeves and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
Judges: THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 190
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
ED HOPSON PRODUCE, INC., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Margaret M. McKEE and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. ED HOPSON PRODUCE COMPANY, Inc., and Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Petitioners, v. Gertrude T. SISK, Tommy Lee Taylor, Betty Lorene Taylor, Jimmy Len Taylor, Mrs. Arnold Reeves and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
Nos. 35309, 35309-A.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 28, 1966.
Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, Sands & D’Aiuto, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
John W. Cooper, Birmingham, John Alexander, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date of February 23, 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.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, O'CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.