5G'S CAR SALES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, APPELLEE
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 summary judgment is reversed because the record raises genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.
The appellee attempted to rely on federal summary judgment cases to defend the summary judgment granted below. The court found the judgment plainly er…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.510 cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The summary judgment under review is reversed because the record plainly raises genuine issues, concerning virtually all of the material facts, which may properly be resolved only by trial. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
In defending the summary judgment, the appellee has attempted to rely upon Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) and their progeny. Although the judgment before us was plainly erroneous under any standard, including Celotex, it should be emphasized that, to the extent that they tend to loosen the restrictions on the use of summary judgment, these cases are based upon language in the federal rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which is not contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.1 Hence, Celotex and similar cases do not represent the law of Florida on the issue. Our law continues to be that expressed in Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d at 40; Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1966) and the numberless cases which follow them.
Reversed.
. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee of the Florida Bar has rejected a proposal that the Florida rule be conformed to the federal one.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)…f appeal have held, that first-degree felonies punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender statute.9 See Lock v. State, 582 So. 2d 819, 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Newton v. State, 581 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Westbrook v. State, 574 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Paige v. State, 570 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). We also hold that sentencing under sections 775.084(4)(a)(l) and 775.084(4)(b)(l) is permissive, not…
-
Cameshia Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…moving for summary judgment in state court, requiring the movant to: “[S]how conclusively that no material issues remain for trial.” Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601, 604 (Fla.1966), see 5G’s Car Sales, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 581 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Green v. CSX Transp., Inc., 626 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In November 2003, Byrd began employment as a cashier at a Wendy’s restaurant owned by BT Foods. Early on, Byrd told her supervisor, Rose Johnson, that she was HIV p…
-
Lamont v. State, 597 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…); Johnson v. State, 568 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Barber v. State, 564 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990); SECOND DISTRICT: Ledesma v. State, 528 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); FOURTH DISTRICT: Newton v. State, 581 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA), juris, accepted, 589 So. 2d 291, and 292 (Fla.1991); Walker v. State, 580 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA), juris, accepted, 589 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1991); FIFTH DISTRICT: Power v. State, 568 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). . Parker v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)