QUEST AIR SOUTH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE MEMPHIS GROUP, INC., A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, 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.
Quest Air South appeals a summary judgment in favor of The Memphis Group on a breach of contract claim. The court reversed, finding that Quest Air South's denial of doing business under the name "Quest Air Parts" created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The court reversed summary judgment because Quest Air South's affidavit denial of doing business as Quest Air Parts created a genuine issue of material fact. The affidavit was sufficient to defeat Memphis' motion for summary judgment.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment must prove the absence of disputed issues of material fact to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[2] A party opposing a motion for summary judgment may defeat the motion by submitting an affidavit that raises genuine issues of material fact.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment.”
The court stated the standard for summary judgment, establishing that any doubt about material facts must favor the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMemphis contracted orally with "Quest Air Parts" for the purchase of airplane parts valued at $25,000, which were delivered. Payment was never receive…
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 Open Account cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
This is an appeal from a final order of summary judgment in favor of appellee, The Memphis Group, Inc., in Memphis’ suit against appellant, Quest Air South, Inc., for breach of contract, account stated, open account, and unjust enrichment. We reverse because Memphis failed to prove the absence of disputed issues of material fact so as to entitle Memphis to a judgment as a matter of law.
On August 14, 1996, Memphis filed suit against. Quest Air South, Inc., d/b/a Quest Air Parts. During discovery, Quest Air South, Inc., stated in its response to admissions that “Quest Air Parts is a[n] independent corporation organized and incorporated in Florida.” Thereafter, Memphis moved for summary judgment and, in support thereof, submitted an affidavit indicating that it had orally contracted with Quest Air Parts in which Quest Air Parts agreed to purchase airplane parts for $25,-000, that these parts were delivered to Quest Air Parts, and that Quest Air Parts never tendered payment. Memphis submitted an invoice showing the shipment of airplane parts to Quest Air Parts and averred that the invoice was never objected to. Additionally, Memphis submitted the affidavit of Lee Fullen, a private investigator, who stated that he checked the State of Florida Division of Corporations’ public records and discovered that Quest Air Parts was listed as a fictitious name registered to Quest Air South, Inc., and that both companies were listed in the State of Florida Division of Corporations’ public records at the same address.
In opposition to Memphis’ motion for summary judgment, Quest Air South, Inc., submitted the affidavit of its president, Arthur Spengler, who asserted that “Quest Air South, Inc. never ... [did] business as Quest Air Parts with the Plaintiff [Memphis]” and that Quest Air South did not enter into any agreements or contracts with Memphis.
We find that Quest Air South, Inc.’s affidavit was sufficient to defeat Memphis’ motion for summary judgment. If the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. See Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HAZOURI, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nard, Inc. v. DeVITO Contracting & Supply, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…d every Florida district court of appeal has concurred with our holding that the merest possibility of the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precludes the entry of final summary judgment. See Quest Air South, Inc. v. Memphis Group, Inc., 733 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1999); Romero v. All Claims Insurance Repairs, Inc., 698 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gardner v. Sabal Point Properties, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).…
-
Monahan v. Davis, 781 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…nuine issues of fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. Quest Air So., Inc. v. Memphis Group, Inc., 733 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citation omitted). [*439] In the light most favorable to Mon-ahan, Davis deposited $202,687 of Mona-han’s money coming from bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and savings bonds into her own account at Sovereign Bank i…
-
Walter T. Embry, Inc. v. LaSALLE Nat'l Bank, 792 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…judgment should not be granted if the record reflects the existence of genuine issues of fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist. See Quest Air S., Inc. v. Memphis Group, Inc., 733 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(citing Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). Once the movant has established its claim with competent record evidence, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genui…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)