WAYNE HAYWOOD O'NEIL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WAYNE HAYWOOD O'NEIL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
225 So. 2d 553
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Pitts v. State (Fla.App.1966), 181 So.2d 739.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barfield v. United States Rubber Co., 234 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…the reasons set forth below, we recede from any suggestion in our decision in Creviston that a suit based on implied warranty by an ultimate consumer against a manufacturer is based on contract. Hendon v. Stanley Home Products, Inc., Fla.App. 1969, 225 So. 2d 553, is subject to the same analysis. However, we wish to make clear that we express no opinion as to the issue of whether a suit based on implied warranty by an ultimate consumer against one other than a manufacturer is within the ambit of Section 95.1…
-
Cowan v. Turchin, 270 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…of contract. The statute of limitations applicable to Count II based upon a breach of implied warranty would be governed by Section 95.11(5) (e). Creviston v. General Motors Corporation, supra. See also Hendon v. Stanley Home Products, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 553. With respect to Counts I and III, the limitations of time set forth in Sections 95.11(3) and 95.11(4) would stand as a bar to such claims. See 2765 South Bayshore Drive Corp. v. Fred Howland, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 911 ; with respect to C…
Authorities Cited
- Pitts v. State, 181 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)