UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

JOHN D. BARFIELD, RESPONDENT; UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY, PETITIONER, V. STANLEY SCALLY, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Grp., Inc., 585 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
  …surance Company, 326 So. 2d 189 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Lauck v. General Telephone Company, 300 So. 2d 759 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); and Barfield v. United States Rubber Company, 234 So. 2d 374 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. den., United States Rubber Company v. Barfield, 239 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1970). It distinguishes Long on the ground that it was based upon an express warranty which was clearly contractual in nature, and argues that rulings that legal obligations implied by law are actually parts of written contracts do not lead to…
• Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 801 F.2d 1279 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …an additional question arises as to how that cause of action is to be considered for purposes of the statute of limitations’ borrowing statute. In a pre-West opinion, Barfield v. United States Rubber Co., 234 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 239 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1970), a district court of appeals held that the implied warranty claims were not governed by the then three-year statute of limitations for contract actions, but rather by the four-year statute relating to actions for relief not specifically p…
• Carmelita Eastburn v. Ford Motor Co., 438 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …ate consumer against a manufacturer with whom the consumer has no privity was not the kind of obligation toward which the “contract” statute (note 1, supra) was directed.4 In September 1970 the Supreme Court of Florida denied certiorari in Barfield. 239 So. 2d 828. Unlike a denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, such a denial by the Supreme Court of Florida is the equivalent of that Court’s affirming the merits of the decision below. See United States v. Seckinger, 5 Cir., 1969, 408 F. 2d 1…

Authorities Cited

• Barfield v. United States Rubber Co., 234 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)