GEORGE SURITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON KELNER, 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 court held that the alleged negligence of the attorney presented a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment.
Plaintiff sued his former attorney for negligently causing the dismissal of his personal injury claim. The attorney moved for summary judgment based o…
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 Legal Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, George Suritz, filed suit against Milton Kelner, an attorney who had at one time been employed by Suritz. In his complaint Suritz alleged that Kelner, while employed as attorney for Suritz, had negligently caused the dismissal with prejudice of a claim for personal injuries which Kelner was employed to prosecute.
Kelner, as defendant in this action against him, took the deposition of Suritz and moved for a summary judgment thereupon. The plaintiff, Suritz, filed the affidavit of a witness and served a notice of the taking of the deposition of the defendant and a motion for production of documents. The trial court’s refusal to delay the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and his order quashing the notice of taking the deposition of the defendant present questions of procedure. We need only mention these questions because the summary judgment must be reversed upon another ground.
The alleged negligence of the defendant-attorney is a genuine issue of material fact and this issue precluded the entry of the summary judgment. Appellee’s argument that the action for personal injuries would have been lost regardless of the charged negligence of the attorney does not conclusively appear from the record. Cf. Wilson v. Bachrach, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 546.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irwin J. Weiner and Mark R. Rubin v. Nelia Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…cific language of the Price rule, the substance of that rule is evident in various Florida cases. See Warwick, Paul and Warwick v. Dotter, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 596; Suritz v. Kelner, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 831; Suritz v. Kelner, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So. 2d 259. In view of the Florida decisions reported which move toward the acceptance of Price, this court now affirmatively adopts Price and applies the rule quoted to the instant case. Without question, the instant plaintiff has met the first two elements…
-
Suritz v. Kelner, 155 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…the action against the tort-feasor brought by the carrier. In the subsequent action by Suritz against his attorney, a summary judgment was entered for the defendant. Upon appeal, this Court reversed the summary judgment with an opinion reported at 134 So. 2d 259. The holding was that upon the record as it existed at that time, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the alleged negligence of the attorney. The cause came on for trial, and at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case the Court directed a v…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. Bachrach, 65 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1953)