STERLING MIRROR COMPANY, LLC,
v.
THE JORDON GLASS CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-06-22
No. 20-1281
Thomas, J., Emas, J., Lindsey, J., Lobree, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022)

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.

Holding

Summary judgment was properly granted where the moving party established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact.

Headnotes

[1] Once a motion for summary judgment is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate by appropriate means that ge…

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
Facts & Procedural History

Sterling Mirror Company, LLC appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in favor of The Jordon Glass Corporat…

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.

Topics
Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment Genuine Issue Of Material Fact Summary Judgment Standard Burden Of Proof

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 22, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D19-2183 & 3D19-1953 & 3D20-1281 Lower Tribunal No. 17-13209 ________________ Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, etc., Appellant, vs. The Jordon Glass Corporation, et al., Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Charles M. Baron, P.A. and Charles M. Baron (Hollywood), for appellant. GrayRobinson, P.A., and Christopher N. Johnson, for appellees. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormand Beach, L.P.,

Footnotes
2 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006) (“Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.”); Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried.” (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966))); Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. First- Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[W]hen a decree of the trial court is brought . . . on appeal the duty rests upon the appealing party to make error clearly appear.” (quoting Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw