BURRY J. STANFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDRIS SILINS, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of the defendant below, Andris Silins.
The proceedings before the court on the motion were not reported. No affidavits or depositions were filed in the court below, and none appears in the récord on appeal. At oral argument, Silins’ counsel conceded that no affidavits or depositions were considered by the court at the hearing. The court apparently permitted counsel to summarize the facts and determined there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial and granted summary judgment.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, dealing with motions for summary judgment, provides:
(c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. The motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued and shall be served at least twenty days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits prior to the day of hearing. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.
Silins’ counsel has acknowledged that the pleadings, answers to interrogatories and admissions alone do not negate the issue of liability; therefore, we must reverse.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…-, 2008 WL 3540219 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 15, 2008). Postconviction movants should also remain aware that penalties for direct contempt of court or perjury may be imposed when movants are untruthful in postcon-viction proceedings. See Roberts v. State, 515 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (ap [*1007] proving a finding of direct contempt of court where the movant’s testimony was diametrically opposed to prior sworn testimony); see also Emanuel v. State, 601 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (explaining that a prosecu…
-
Sparks v. State, 740 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ower to hold a witness in contempt for perjury is limited, but it would be proper to exercise that power in a case such as this one where the witness has signed an affidavit that is diametrically opposed to his trial testimony. See Roberts v. State, 515 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Here, the trial judge took a much less drastic step. Whether a judge may properly inform the lawyers of perjury in a situation such as this is an issue upon which experienced trial judges might disagree. Some might argue that i…
-
Emanuel v. State, 601 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…guilty of perjury. In other words, the contemner is entitled to a jury trial if the facts are substantially disputed, and the court cannot take judicial knowledge that the testimony or allegation is false. 189 So. at 715. See also Roberts v. State, 515 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (order of contempt upheld where defendant’s testimony at his motion to withdraw his plea was diametrically opposite to his testimony taken in court when he entered his plea); Duff v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 386…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence