Case ID: so3d_106/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lucille Ruth SOFFER, as personal representative of the Estate of Maurice Benson SOFFER, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, et al., Appellee.
    No. 1D11-3724.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 2, 2013.
    John S. Mills, The Mills Firm, Tallahassee, Mark A. Avera, Rod Smith, Dawn M. Vallejos-Nichols, Avera & Smith, Gaines-ville, and James W. Gustafson, Jr., Searcy Denney Searola Barnhart & Shipley, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Robert B. Parrish, Moseley, Pritchard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, and Gregory G. Katsas, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
   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.