Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

106 So. 3d 465, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 66, 2013 WL 11873
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 2, 2013·No. No. 1D11-3724·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ON APPELLANT/CROSS-APPEL-LEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC AND APPELLEE/CROSS-APPEL-LANT’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In our original opinion, we affirmed the cross-appeal without comment. We grant rehearing to clarify that we affirm R.J. Reynolds’s third issue on appeal — namely, whether the trial court’s application of factual findings established in Engle violated R.J. Reynolds’s due process rights — on the authority of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review denied, 67 So.3d 1050 (2011), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1794, 182 L.Ed.2d 617 (2012), and Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 83 So.3d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), review granted, No. SC12-617 (2012). We otherwise deny rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certification.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

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

Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So. 3d 465, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 66, 2013 WL 11873 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

106 So. 3d 465 (Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. BERNICE MCCALL
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Berger v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
101 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (M.D. Florida, 2015)