Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

542 So. 2d 1065, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1149, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2563, 1989 WL 47151

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1989

DocketNos. 88-0163, 88-0364

StatusPublished

This text of 542 So. 2d 1065 (Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.) 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

Hechler v. I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co., 542 So. 2d 1065, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1149, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2563, 1989 WL 47151 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer, which held that the action was barred under the applicable statute of repose. See Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985).

In Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987), the supreme court reaffirmed the standard enunciated in Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973), concerning the constitutional guaranty of access to the courts. We reject the appellant’s argument that the decision in Smith is inconsistent with the reasoning applied in Pullum. See Carr v. Broward County, 541 So.2d 92 (Fla.1989); Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla.1987); See also the rationale in Overland Construction v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer, which held that the action was barred under the applicable statute of repose. See Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985).

In Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987), the supreme court reaffirmed the standard enunciated in Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973), concerning the constitutional guaranty of access to the courts. We reject the appellant’s argument that the decision in Smith is inconsistent with the reasoning applied in Pullum. See Carr v. Broward County, 541 So.2d 92 (Fla.1989); Melendez v. Dreis and Krump Manufacturing Co., 515 So.2d 735 (Fla.1987); See also the rationale in Overland Construction v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

HERSEY, C.J., and STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 So. 2d 1065, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1149, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2563, 1989 WL 47151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hechler-v-i-t-e-circuit-breaker-co-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack