R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Thibault
148 So. 3d 168, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16750, 2014 WL 5100182
Opinion
We affirm all points raised on appeal. We write only to confirm our position that appellant’s proposed jury instruction on the statute of repose was properly denied. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Buchanan, — So.3d — (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hiott, 129 So.3d 473, 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). In so hold-[169]*169mg, as we did in Buchanan, we certify conflict with Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Hess, 95 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), rev. granted, 137 So.3d 1020 (Fla.2013) (table).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Thibault, 148 So. 3d 168, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16750, 2014 WL 5100182 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).
148 So. 3d 168 (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Thibault) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hiott
129 So. 3d 473 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hess
95 So. 3d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)