KIRTLAND HAMILTON AND CHARLOTTE HAMILTON, HIS WIFE, MARK HAMILTON AND CONSTANCE RENEE HAMILTON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, J & M AIRCRAFT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AVCO CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION D/B/A AVCO LYCOMING DIVISION, HARLEY G. BROOKSHIRE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAMELA D. LEE, DECEASED, WILLIAM STONE AND UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., AND CURTIS DYNA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
This opinion contains a special concurrence arguing that the costs imposed by section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, do not constitute a penalty and therefore do not violate ex post facto provisions.
The concurring judge believes that the costs imposed by section 27.3455, Florida Statutes, should not be characterized as a penalty and thus would uphold the statute against an ex post facto attack.
The case involves an appeal concerning the imposition of costs under section 27.3455, Florida Statutes. A judge specially concurred, disagreeing with …
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 Equal Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that appellants’ action was time barred. We affirm on the authority of Feil v. Challenge-Cook Brothers, Inc., 473 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) wherein another panel of this court rejected the same constitutional attack on section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1981) now asserted by appellants. See also Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to grant rehearing or leave to amend after summary judgment was entered. However, recognizing the importance of the constitutional issue, we join the Pullum court in certifying the following issue as one of great public importance:
DOES SECTION 95.031(2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1981) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO APPELLANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO ARE INJURED BY PRODUCTS IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE EIGHTH AND THE TWELFTH YEAR AFTER ORIGINAL DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCTS AND THEREBY HAVE LESS TIME THAN ANY OTHERS AFFECTED BY THE STATUTE TO BRING AN ACTION?
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G„ Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spellissy v. Kelly, 823 F.2d 438 (11th Cir. 1987)…ion against defendant, GENERAL DYNAMICS, is barred by the Florida Statute of Repose, Fla.Stat. § 95.031(2). See Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 458 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1 1984), aff'd 476 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1985); Hamilton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 473 So. 2d 301 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4 1985), appeal dismissed, Case No. 67,529 (Fla. January 28, 1986). Accordingly, it is now: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: That Defendant’s, GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby GRANTED. Th…
Authorities Cited
- Small v. State, 458 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Feil v. Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc., 473 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)