Case Name: FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Petitioners, v. Gus JOHNSON and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents; Gus JOHNSON, Cross-Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1967-10-04
Citations: 202 So. 2d 846
Docket Number: No. 36522
Parties: FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Petitioners, v. Gus JOHNSON and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. Gus JOHNSON, Cross-Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Respondents.
Judges: CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 846–846

Head Matter:
FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Petitioners, v. Gus JOHNSON and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. Gus JOHNSON, Cross-Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FERTILIZER COMPANY, Inc. and Milwaukee Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Respondents.
No. 36522.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 4, 1967.
Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Ronald McCall and James E. Thompson, Tampa, for petitioners-cross-respondents.
Peterson, Peterson & Harris, Lakeland, for respondent-cross-petitioner.
Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By petition and cross-petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date May 19, 1967.
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, 32 F.S.A.
Our consideration of the petition and the 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.
The attorney for the claimant-respondent on the petition for certiorari is allowed a fee of $250.00 for his services in this Court. Application for fees on the cross-petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.