Case Name: ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Minnie Lee PITTS and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents; Lizzie Smith PITTS and Minnie Lee Pitts and Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1964-05-13
Citations: 162 So. 2d 517
Docket Number: Nos. 33165, 33171
Parties: ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Minnie Lee PITTS and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. Lizzie Smith PITTS and Minnie Lee Pitts and Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent.
Judges: DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 162
Pages: 517–517

Head Matter:
ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Minnie Lee PITTS and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. Lizzie Smith PITTS and Minnie Lee Pitts and Florida Industrial Commission, Cross-Petitioners, v. ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, Cross-Respondent.
Nos. 33165, 33171.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 13, 1964.
Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich and James E. Cobb, Jacksonville, for petitioner and cross-respondent.
Glen Cone for Minnie Lee Pitts.
Evans, Stewart & Proctor and George L. Proctor, Jacksonville, for Lizzie Smith Pitts, respondents and cross-petitioners.
Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent and cross-petitioner.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission hearing date October 29, 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 petitions, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.
The petitions are therefore denied.
DREW, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, O'CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.