R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Melba Sherman, etc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC12-437 ____________ R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. MELBA SHERMAN, etc., Respondent. [February 27, 2014] PER CURIAM. We initially accepted review of the decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sherman, 79 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), a per curiam affirmance citing to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), because we accepted jurisdiction in Brown based on express and direct conflict. We have since discharged jurisdiction in Brown. Therefore, there is no basis to exercise jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss review. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2). It is so ordered. POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions Fourth District Case No. 4D09-2472 (Broward County) Gordon James III and Eric L. Lundt of Sedgwick LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Gregory G. Katsas and Charles R. A. Morse of Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Petitioner Robert S. Glazier of Law Office of Robert S. Glazier, Miami, Florida; Adam Trop of Trop & Ameen, P.A., Hollywood, Florida; Gary M. Paige of Law Office of Gary M. Paige, Coral Gables, Florida; and Alex Alvarez of The Alvarez Law Firm, Coral Gables, Florida, for Respondent -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
