State ex rel. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 17 November 1959 |
| Citation | 118 So.2d 223 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Florida ex rel. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Charles L. JOHNSON, claimant, Florida Industrial Commission, an administrative agency, and John W. Prunty, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondents. . Writ of Prohibition Denied |
Lally & Miller, Miami, for petitioners.
Loewenstein & Dunn, Miami, for Charles L. Johnson and Paul E. Speh for Florida Industrial Commission, respondents.
Suggestion for writ of prohibition denied without opinion.
On Petition for Rehearing
Petitioners seek rehearing of a prior order of this Court denying a rule nisi in prohibition.
The point now at hand is whether the respondent Johnson is entitled to an allowance of a fee for his attorney for services rendered in connection with the prohibition proceeding.
Johnson as an employee obtained an order from a deputy commissioner of the Florida Industrial Commission awarding compensation for injuries resulting from an industrial accident. Subsequently Johnson proceeded in the Circuit Court under Section 440.24, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to obtain a rule nisi directing the petitioner insurance carrier to show cause why the amount of the award should not be paid. Thereafter, petitioner filed in this Court an original proceeding in prohibition suggesting the issuance of such a writ to prohibit the Circuit Judge and other respondents from proceeding under Section 440.24, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., supra. We denied the writ. We simultaneously granted the motion of the respondent Johnson for allowance of a reasonable fee for the services of his attorney in opposition to the writ. By petition for rehearing the petitioner suggests that no such attorney's fee was allowable but, if so, the amount allowed was excessive.
Petitioner refers us to Section 440.34(1), which reads as follows:
(Emphasis Petitioners')
We think the petitioner has merit to the point which it makes on rehearing.
In the original consideration of this matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 95-3865
...Larson v. Warren, 132 So.2d 177, appeal dism'd, 369 U.S. 427, 82 S.Ct. 879, 8 L.Ed.2d 7 (1962); State ex rel. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v. Johnson, 118 So.2d 223 (Fla.1960); Codomo v. Emanuel, 91 So.2d 653 (Fla.1956); Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So.2d 684 (Fla.1954); Phoenix Indemn. Co. v......
-
National Airlines, Inc. v. Wikle
...one now before us. The case law on this point is consistent with the plain language of the statute. In State ex rel. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Johnson, 118 So.2d 223 (Fla.1959), this Court construed a virtually identical predecessor to this statute as allowing awards of attorney'......
-
City of Miami v. Knight
...employer argues that no fee may be awarded by the JCC for such representation in the circuit court. In State ex rel. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Johnson, 118 So.2d 223 (Fla.1960), the supreme court declined to award an attorney's fee for successfully defending a prohibition request......
-
Caravasios v. M.W. Spates Const. Co.
...one now before us. The case law on this point is consistent with the plain language of the statute. In State ex rel. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Johnson, 118 So.2d 223 (Fla.1959), this Court construed a virtually identical predecessor to this statute as allowing awards of attorney'......