ESTELLE TEMPLIN AND RICHARD TEMPLIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND FRED WYNN, 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 the record did not conclusively show probable cause for K-Mart to seek prosecution, creating a material question of fact.
Estelle Templin was found not guilty of retail theft after K-Mart initiated prosecution for alleged theft of artificial flowers worth $2.88. Templin c…
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 Material Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Templins appeal from a final summary judgment entered against them in their suit for malicious prosecution against K-Mart Corporation. The suit was brought after Estelle Templin was found not guilty in a retail theft prosecution initiated by appellee. We reverse.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the record shows as a matter of law that K-Mart had probable cause to seek prosecution of Templin for the theft of artificial flowers and greenery worth approximately $2.88.1 The law is well-settled in Florida that a movant for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every reasonable inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.2
We agree with appellee that the security manager had sufficient grounds to stop Templin and make an initial inquiry. Nevertheless, Templin’s explanation, that she brought the alleged stolen blue flowers from home to try to purchase matching ones, and other testimony that K-Mart did not have any blue flowers like them for sale in that store, created a material question of fact as to whether K-Mart had probable cause to seek Templin's prosecu tion.3 Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See Pellegrini v. Winter, 476 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985), Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977).
. Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Harris v. The Lewis State Bank, 482 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Pellegrini v. Winter, 476 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)