Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 39224,39224 |
| Citation | 234 So.2d 644 |
| Parties | John SWEENEY, a/k/a Swinney, Petitioner, v. PINE ISLAND CITRUS GROVES, INC., Old Colony Insurance Company, and Florida Department of Commerce Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Allen Clements and Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for petitioner.
Charles Desmond Crowley, Ft. Lauderdale, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.
The parties stipulated that claimant should have until February 22, 1969, to file his verified petition to be relieved of the costs of preparation of the transcript. This was beyond the twenty-day period fixed by Rule 6(c), Rules of Procedure in Workmen's Compensation Cases. Such petition was filed but a copy was not served on opposing counsel as the rule provides. The Judge of Industrial Claims held that, the rule not having been complied with, he had no alternative except to dismiss the petition. He held that 'the time for filing he verified petition is mandatory.' On review of this order the Full Commission held:
'Rule No. 6 states, in part, the following:
'(c) The appellant may be relieved of making a deposit and paying all or a part of the cost for the preparation of the transcript of the evidence * * * provided within twenty days after delivery of notice by the judge of industrial claims as to the amount of the deposit so required for the preparation of the transcript and copies he makes and files with the judge of industrial claims a verified petition attesting that he is utterly unable to pay the cost thereof, * * * A true copy of such petition and certificate upon the opposing parties or their counsel at or before the time of filing thereof. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
'Even if the judge of industrial claims could extend time, which he cannot, the record reflects that claimant did file a verified petition on February 21, 1969, But failed to file a copy on opposing counsel on or before said date pursuant to Rule No. 6(c), supra.
'In the case of East v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 4 FCR 338 (1961), which we hold is in point, the full Commission stated in interpreting Rule No. 6(c):
'Accordingly, the Order of the judge of industrial claims must be affirmed.'
Both the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Full Commission erred in holding that this rule was mandatory. This and other rules of the Commission should be observed in the interest of expediting the speedy determination of these administrative proceedings. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tropicana Products, Inc. v. Parrish
...Contractors v. Hammond, 164 So.2d 513 (Fla.1964); Perez v. Carillon Hotel, 231 So.2d 519 (Fla.1970); Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., 234 So.2d 644 (Fla.1970); Smith v. Kikilis Florist, 290 So.2d 22 We have made a complete review of the line of cases dealing with the recurring pr......
-
Smith v. Kikilis Florist
...Chapman & Gerber, Inc., 235 So.2d 489 (Fla.1970), citing Perez v. Carillon Hotel, 231 So.2d 519 (Fla.1970), and Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, 234 So.2d 644 (Fla.1970). See also Knell v. Southgate Towers Restaurant, Inc., 235 So.2d 291 If the parties, by their conduct or otherwise, w......
-
Knell v. Southgate Towers Restaurant, Inc.
...bound to apply it when a party claims its benefits.' See Perez v. Carillon Hotel, 231 So.2d 519 (Fla.1970) and Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., 234 So.2d 644 (Fla.1970), opinion filed April 15, In the present case, there is no question but that the respondent's counsel attempted ......
-
Federal Elec. Corp. v. Best, 42782
...that the moving party was not prejudiced by the late filing, therefore the motions were denied, citing Sweeney v. Pine Island Citrus Groves, Inc., Fla.1970, 234 So.2d 644. The Commission then reversed the Judge of Industrial Claims' order denying benefits and remanded the cause, 'In reviewi......