BLOCK
v.
MCLAUGHLIN, ET AL.
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.
In this 1962 Dade County Circuit Court case, the court denied summary judgment motions filed by the plaintiff and defendant McLaughlin, but granted summary judgment for defendant Ralph, dismissing him as a party. The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary relief for most parties, and that Ralph could not be held personally liable where all his actions were performed in his capacity as attorney for McLaughlin.
Summary relief was denied for the plaintiff and defendant McLaughlin because genuine issues of material fact existed and conflicting inferences could be drawn from the facts. Summary relief was granted for defendant Ralph because he could not be held personally liable where all his actions were performed in his capacity as attorney for McLaughlin.
“Although there is a temptation, when all parties move for summary relief in chancery, to take the "bull by the horns" and consider the matter as though it were a "trial by deposition and affidavit", the fact remains that any such action by a chancellor is highly irregular (in the absence of consent by the parties) and not within the ken of the rule authorizing and establishing the procedure for summary relief”
Establishes that the court cannot treat multiple summary motions as a trial on the merits absent party consent, and must follow Rule 1.36
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff and defendants (McLaughlin and Ralph) all filed motions for summary decree accompanied by affidavits, depositions, and admissions. The r…
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 Summary Judgment Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is presently before the court on motions for summary decree filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants. Both motions are accompanied by affidavits and, of course, purport to be founded upon the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file.
The court has examined the record (pleadings, affidavits and depositions), as well as the very excellent briefs submitted by the parties, and concludes that, except for the defendant Ralph’s motion, all motions for summary relief must be denied.
In so ruling the court is not passing upon the merits and no such interpretation should be placed upon this order or any portion of it.
Although there is a temptation, when all parties move for summary relief in chancery, to take the “bull by the horns” and consider the matter as though it were a “trial by deposition and affidavit”, the fact remains that any such action by a chancellor is highly irregular (in the absence of consent by the parties) and not within the ken of the rule authorizing and establishing the procedure for summary relief — Rule 1.36, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Shaffran v. Holness (Fla. 1957), 93 So.2d 94, Pancoast v. Pancoast (Fla. App. 1957), 97 So.2d 875.
In the instant case the pleadings, affidavits and depositions clearly establish the existence of genuine issues as to material *95facts, or, at a bare minimum, they establish that conflicting inferences may be drawn from many facts which may otherwise appear to be undisputed.- See, e.g., Baskin v. Griffith (Fla. App. 1961), 127 So.2d 467.
As alluded to above the motion on behalf of the defendant Ralph stands on a different footing. So far as the record reveals here all of the activities of the defendant Ralph were performed in his capacity as attorney for the defendant McLaughlin. This is not disputed. The court has carefully examined plaintiffs brief and it fails to demonstrate a basis for holding the defendant Ralph personally liable. Hence his motion will be granted. However, this action should not be construed as relieving the defendant Ralph from the obligations imposed upon him, in his capacity as an attorney-at-law, by order of this court on December 28, 1961.
The premises considered it is ordered as follows— (1) The plaintiff’s motion for summary decree is denied.- (2) The defendant McLaughlin’s motion for summary decree is denied. (3) The defendant Ralph’s motion for summary decree is granted and the defendant Ralph is dismissed as a party defendant from this proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1957)
- Norris F. Baskin and Ola G. Baskin v. Griffith, 127 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Pancoast v. Pancoast, 97 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)