Wallis v. Grumman Corporation

503 So. 2d 366, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 613, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11978
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 24, 1987
Docket86-238
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 503 So. 2d 366 (Wallis v. Grumman Corporation) 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
Wallis v. Grumman Corporation, 503 So. 2d 366, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 613, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11978 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

503 So.2d 366 (1987)

Robert P. WALLIS, Appellant,
v.
The GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 86-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 24, 1987.

Melvin A. Rubin, Jerry B. Schreiber, Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl and James E. Tribble and Angela L. DerOvanesian, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment in favor of the defendant, The Grumman Corporation, is affirmed on the authority of Shaw v. General Motors Corp., 503 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). As in Shaw, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the following questions as being of great public importance:

I. Should the legislative amendment of Section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1983), abolishing the statute of repose in product liability actions, be construed to operate retrospectively as to a cause of action which accrued before the effective date of the amendment?
II. If not, should the decision of Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1985), appeal dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1626, 90 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986), which overruled Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1980), apply so as to bar a cause of action that accrued after the Battilla decision but before the Pullum decision?

Affirmed.

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

Related

National Insurance Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
522 So. 2d 53 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
NAT. INS. UNDERWRITERS v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
522 So. 2d 53 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Wallis v. Grumman Corp.
515 So. 2d 1276 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Smith v. Sturm, Ruger, Smith & Co., Inc.
510 So. 2d 343 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Sampson v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
507 So. 2d 1222 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Diaz
507 So. 2d 1197 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Lazo v. Baring Industries, Inc.
508 So. 2d 1256 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 So. 2d 366, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 613, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallis-v-grumman-corporation-fladistctapp-1987.