Case ID: so2d_482/html/1352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "OVERTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard PULLUM, Petitioner, v. CINCINNATI, INC., et al., Respondents.
    No. 66198.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 4, 1985.
   Upon consideration of the Motion for Rehearing filed by attorney for petitioner and the Motion for Rehearing and Clarification filed by attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, and responses thereto,

IT IS ORDERED that said Motions be and the same are hereby denied.

BOYD, C.J., and McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, J.,

I find nothing new in the petition for rehearing; consequently, I am bound to deny rehearing even though I disagree with the majority opinion and would allow a claim to be brought within the four-year statute of limitations period if the cause of action accrued within the twelve-year period of the statute of repose.

ADKINS, J., dissents.