Case Name: SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Alan S. BOYD, Jerry W. Carter, and Wilbur C. King, as members of and constituting Fiorida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, and City of Tallahassee, City of Valparaiso, City of Crestview, City of Madison, City of Fort Walton Beach, City of Greenville, and City of Niceville, Fiorida, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1959-08-11
Citations: 114 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Alan S. BOYD, Jerry W. Carter, and Wilbur C. King, as members of and constituting Fiorida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, and City of Tallahassee, City of Valparaiso, City of Crestview, City of Madison, City of Fort Walton Beach, City of Greenville, and City of Niceville, Fiorida, Respondents.
Judges: TERRELL, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ. concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 114
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
SOUTHEASTERN TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Alan S. BOYD, Jerry W. Carter, and Wilbur C. King, as members of and constituting Fiorida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, and City of Tallahassee, City of Valparaiso, City of Crestview, City of Madison, City of Fort Walton Beach, City of Greenville, and City of Niceville, Fiorida, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 11, 1959.
Charles S. Ausley and D. Fred McMullen, of Ausley, Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Lewis W. Petteway and Guyte P. Mc-Cord, Jr., Tallahassee, for Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission.
James Messer, Jr., Leo L. Foster, W. J. Oven, Jr., and Caldwell, Parker, Foster, Madigan, Oven & Moriarty, Tallahassee, for City of Tallahassee, City of Valparaiso, City of Crestview, City of Madison, City of Fort Walton Beach, City of Greenville and City of Niceville, Florida, respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Because the petition for certiorari suggested potential jurisdiction we issued the writ and the matter has been heard on the question of jurisdiction as well as on the merits.
A careful study of the supporting record in the light of the well-prepared and illumi nating briefs leads us to the conclusion that the decision of the Court of Appeal does not collide with a prior decision of this Court on the same point of law. Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, F. S.A.
Finding as we do that there is no point of conflict between the decision submitted for review and any prior decision of this Court on the same point of law, the writ must be and it is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ. concur.