R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Koballa

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Koballa

99 So. 3d 630, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18758, 2012 WL 5272983

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 26, 2012·No. No. 5D11-2914·Published

Opinion

[631]*631ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION

TORPY, J.

We grant the motion for written opinion, withdraw our previous per curiam decision and affirm in all respects. Regarding Appellant’s due process argument, we agree with the decision of the Second District in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 83 So.3d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). We certify the following question of great public importance to the supreme court:

DOES ACCEPTING AS RES JUDICA-TA THE EIGHT PHASE I FINDINGS APPROVED IN ENGLE V. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), VIOLATE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

[631]*631ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION

TORPY, J.

We grant the motion for written opinion, withdraw our previous per curiam decision and affirm in all respects. Regarding Appellant’s due process argument, we agree with the decision of the Second District in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 83 So.3d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). We certify the following question of great public importance to the supreme court:

DOES ACCEPTING AS RES JUDICA-TA THE EIGHT PHASE I FINDINGS APPROVED IN ENGLE V. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), VIOLATE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Koballa, 99 So. 3d 630, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18758, 2012 WL 5272983 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

99 So. 3d 630 (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Koballa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related