R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
v.
JACQUELINE P. BURGESS, ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The petition for review is dismissed based on the parties' resolution and mutual request to dismiss.
[1] A petition for review may be dismissed when the parties mutually agree to resolve the underlying dispute and request dismissal of the proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company petitioned for review in a case against Jacqueline P. Burgess. The parties subsequently resolved the matter and jointly …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fraudulent Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022 CASE NO.: SC20-366 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D18-3014; 562009CA006060AXXXHC
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY
vs. JACQUELINE P. BURGESS, ETC. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) Upon review of the response to this Court’s order to show cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, it is ordered that the petition for review is hereby dismissed. MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result with an opinion. FRANCIS, J., did not participate. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. LABARGA, J., concurring in result. Given the parties’ resolution of this case and their mutual request to dismiss this matter, I concur with this Court’s order dismissing this case. Nonetheless, I reaffirm my dissent to this Court’s holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022), because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment in an CASE NO.: SC20-366 Page Two Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant. A True Copy Test: ks Served: