LUCILLE RUTH SOFFER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MAURICE BENSON SOFFER, APPELLANT,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL., 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
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015)…non-standard instructions are proposed, trial courts face an analytical task similar in kind to that performed by the thirty-two member Florida Standard Jury Instructions Committee — without the luxury of time.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jewett, 106 So. 3d 465, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Thus, non-standard proposed instructions must be legally accurate and factually relevant. Id. A party cannot complain on appeal that a trial court committed reversible error by failing to correct that party’s own inaccurat…1 / 2
-
Crane Co. v. DeLISLE, 206 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…nd (3) necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues, so long as the subject of the proposed instruction is not covered in other instructions given to the jury and the failure to instruct is shown to be prejudicial, R.J. Reynolds v. Jewett, 106 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The trial court refused to give Lorillard’s instruction as to whether DeLi-sle smoked cigarettes because it was not a standard instruction and the question was inherent in the standard instruction, even though the trial co…
-
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. McCall, 234 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…as its decision to instruct [*14] the jury on the legal effects of cigarette warning labels. A trial court’s decision to give or refuse to give a proposed jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jewett, 106 So. 3d 465, 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). A trial court abuses its discretion when it gives an instruction that is “ ‘reasonably calculated to confuse or mislead’ ” the jury, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 19…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Matilde C. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Prince v. State, 67 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 2011)
- Thompson v. State, 83 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)