Hamilton v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hamilton v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

473 So. 2d 301, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17477

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2615

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 301 (Hamilton v. Piper Aircraft Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 473 So. 2d 301, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17477 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that appellants’ action was time barred. We affirm on the authority of Feil v. Challenge-Cook Brothers, Inc., 473 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) wherein another panel of this court rejected the same constitutional attack on section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1981) now asserted by appellants. See also Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 458 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant rehearing or leave to amend after summary judgment was entered. However, recognizing the importance of the constitutional issue, we join the Pullum court in certifying the following issue as one of great public importance:

DOES SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1981) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO APPELLANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO ARE INJURED BY PRODUCTS IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE EIGHTH AND THE TWELFTH YEAR AFTER ORIGINAL DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCTS AND THEREBY HAVE LESS TIME THAN ANY OTHERS AFFECTED BY THE STATUTE TO BRING AN ACTION?

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G„ Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that appellants’ action was time barred. We affirm on the authority of Feil v. Challenge-Cook Brothers, Inc., 473 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) wherein another panel of this court rejected the same constitutional attack on section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1981) now asserted by appellants. See also Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 458 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant rehearing or leave to amend after summary judgment was entered. However, recognizing the importance of the constitutional issue, we join the Pullum court in certifying the following issue as one of great public importance:

DOES SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1981) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO APPELLANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO ARE INJURED BY PRODUCTS IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE EIGHTH AND THE TWELFTH YEAR AFTER ORIGINAL DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCTS AND THEREBY HAVE LESS TIME THAN ANY OTHERS AFFECTED BY THE STATUTE TO BRING AN ACTION?

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G„ Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 301, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1879, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-piper-aircraft-corp-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack