From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrison v. Hyster Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 13, 1987
502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Summary

holding that the court should not have chosen to accept jurisdiction to review the per curiam opinion as it was it was decided on the authority of another decision that was never reviewed by the court on the merits

Summary of this case from Mullins v. State

Opinion

No. 86-1677.

February 13, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Richard A. Bronson, Judge.

Philip O. Allen and James A. Yancey of DeVane, Munson, Allen Langston, Lakeland, for appellants.

Philip D. Parrish of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.


We are presented once again with the question of whether the legislature's 1986 amendment repealing the twelve-year statute of repose that is contained in section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1985), should be applied retroactively to revive appellants' products liability claim filed on December 3, 1985. This court ruled in Small v. Niagara Machine Tool Works, 502 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that the amendment did not have retroactive application. On the authority of that opinion, we affirm the final summary judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.


Summaries of

Harrison v. Hyster Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 13, 1987
502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

holding that the court should not have chosen to accept jurisdiction to review the per curiam opinion as it was it was decided on the authority of another decision that was never reviewed by the court on the merits

Summary of this case from Mullins v. State
Case details for

Harrison v. Hyster Company

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DAVID HARRISON AND VICKY EULEEN HARRISON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 13, 1987

Citations

502 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Am. Laundry Machinery

Although this issue is not properly before us because it is raised for the first time on appeal, we note that…

Smith v. Sturm, Ruger, Smith Co.

Thus, the cause of action which had arisen in this case at the time of plaintiff's injury became barred…