JOHN PHILLIP RISLEY, INDIVIDUALLY, J. STEPHEN RISLEY, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN USA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 2001-08-09
No. 99-15321
Before BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK, District Judge.
260 F.3d 1310 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
BLACK, Circuit Judge:

Before BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK, District Judge. BLACK, Circuit Judge: We sua sponte grant rehearing. Our prior opinion in this case construed Fla. Stat. § 320.643. See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 254 F. 3d 1296 (11th Cir.2001).

On June 8, 2001, the Governor of Florida signed Fla. Laws ch. 2001-196, which amends, inter alia, Fla. Stat. § 320.643. These amendments pertain, in part, to the procedural steps for filing a complaint with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. See Fla. Laws ch. 2001-196, § 23. Regardless, the amendments do not alter our holding or reasoning in this case, because, as noted in our prior opinion, the events here are governed by the 1997 version of the Florida Statutes. See Risley, 254 F. 3d at 1297 n. 1; see also Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 So. 2d 512, 517 n. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Therefore, our prior opinion is REINSTATED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004)
    …ture). Likewise, when opposing a defendant’s Rule 41 motion for return of property, mere government allegations, unsupported by affidavits or verified pleadings, are insufficient to show that property was destroyed. United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F. 3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir.2001). Finally, even in the civil context of summary judgment, "conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value.” Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F. 3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Evers v.…
  • United States v. Granger Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2005)
    …iderations in order to make a fair and just decision. When an owner invokes Rule 41(g) after the close of all criminal proceedings, the court treats the motion for return of property as a civil action in equity. See United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F. 3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir.2001); see also United States v. Martinez, 241 F. 3d 1329, 1330-31 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that a district court has equitable jurisdiction over a Rule 41(e) motion brought after all criminal proceedings against a defendant have end…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw