TOM COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVE BRIGMAN, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding defamation claims.
[1] Summary judgment is disfavored in tort cases.
[2] A party opposing summary judgment need not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with clear and convincing evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff alleged he was libeled and slandered by the defendant with malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no ge…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reckless Disregard For The Truth cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment which held that the appellant is entitled to no relief, as a matter of law, because “the Court finds that there has not been demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact in order to support a claim for libel and slander. ... ”
No citations of authority are necessary to support the proposition of law that a trial court should not enter summary judgment where disputed issues of material fact are extant. However, a reading of Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966) and the cases following that case seem to say that the law, especially in tort cases, does not favor summary judgments.
Tom Collins says in his pleadings that he was libeled and slandered by Dave Brig-man. He also says so in his depositions. That is not disputed by anyone in a sworn statement, although it is denied by Brig-man’s answer to the complaint. Tom Collins alleges under oath that when he was defamed by Dave Brigman it was done with malice, with knowledge of the untruthfulness, or with reckless disregard of the truth of the statements.
The appellant has filed a sufficient complaint, which swears to facts which, if true, would constitute libel, and which, if not met with a sufficient defense, will expose Dave Brigman to liability.
In order for a litigant to avoid a summary judgment he does not have to “demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact,” — even in a public official defamation case. There merely has to be demonstrated that a genuine issue as to a material fact is in dispute. In view of the fact that the appellee filed no affidavits or any other sworn statement to demonstrate he was legally entitled to the summary judgment, and because the sworn statements and allegations of the plaintiff establish a preliminary right to a cause of action, we must reverse the summary judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnes v. T.D. Fender, 936 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…exists.” Id.; Hamilton v. Bank of Palm Beach & Trust Co., 348 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). To avoid summary judgment, a litigant does not have to provide clear and convincing evidence that issues of material fact exist. Collins v. Brigman, 428 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, “it should be assumed that every fact as to which the party moved against has any appreciable evidence may at a trial be established to the satisfaction of a jury.” Connolly v.…
-
Wolfgang Binner v. Allen Morris, Inc., 741 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…Transflorida Bank, and Zedeck & Kurlander, P.A., since the record reflects that there remain genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the fact-finder as to those defendants. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Collins v. Brigman, 428 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). However, we affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Allen Morris, Inc. and Mary Ann Portell. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)