John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp., 254 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp., 254 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Phillip Risley, Individually, J. Stephen Risley, Individually v. Nissan Motor Corporation in Usa, a California Corporation (ca11, 2001-08-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" John Phillip Risley, Individually, J. Stephen Risley, Individually v. Nissan Motor Corporation in Usa, a California Corporation (2×)
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 254 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.2001).
discussed Cited "see" John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp. USA, 254 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir.2001).
John Phillip Risley
v.
Nissan Motor Corp.
99-15321.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jun 27, 2001.
254 F.3d 1296
Published
John Phillip RISLEY, individually, J. Stephen Risley, individually, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.
NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN USA, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-15321.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 9, 2001.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 98-00863-CV-J-16B); John H. Moore, II, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

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.

* Honorable James H. Hancock, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.