JORGE OROPEZA
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
An expert affidavit, engineering report, and supporting photographs and schematics create material factual issues that preclude summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is not designed to resolve disputed issues of fact but merely to identify whether a factual issue exists that must be resolved by trial, and a trial cour…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.”
Court explaining the proper standard for summary judgment review
Jorge Oropeza appealed a final judgment after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Oropeza su…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0701 Lower Tribunal No. 21-14652-CA-01 ________________
Jorge Oropeza, Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge.
Property Litigation Group PLLC, and Samantha Scheff (Miramar), for appellant.
GrayRobinson, P.A., Richard Barry (Orlando), Kristie Hatcher-Bolin (Lakeland), and Shakiva Brown (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Appellant, Jorge Oropeza, appeals a final judgment rendered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Having carefully conducted a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the expert affidavit, engineering report, and supporting photographs and schematics created material factual issues precluding summary judgment. See Ortega v. JW Marriott Inv., LLC, 405 So. 3d 473, 477–78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.”) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)); see also CG Tides LLC v. SHEDDF3 VNB, LLC, 388 So. 3d 1081, 1084–85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“Properly understood, summary judgment is akin to a pre-trial directed verdict. Summary judgment is not designed to resolve disputed issues of fact. It merely serves to identify whether an issue of fact exists that must be resolved by trial.”) (citation omitted); Lassiter v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 386 So. 3d 646, 647–48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“We conclude that the trial court impermissibly weighed the evidence in ruling on Citizens’ motion when it determined that the parties’ affidavits resulted in a ‘tie’ and that there were
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986)
- CG Tides LLC v. SHEDDF3 VNB, LLC, 388 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)