STERLING MIRROR COMPANY, LLC
v.
THE JORDON GLASS 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.
Summary judgment was properly entered when the moving party demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the opposing party failed to demonstrate that genuine and material issues remained for trial.
[1] 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.
[2] 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 iss…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSterling Mirror Company, LLC appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The case involved a dispute between Sterling Mirror Company …
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormand Beach, L.P., 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
Cited By
-
Sterling Mirror Co., LLC v. THE Jordon Glass Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2006)
- Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Sterling Mirror Co., LLC v. THE Jordon Glass Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)