EMIL BIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER G. GEISER AND LOUIS KOTTLE, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES GEISER, DECEASED, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact after the defendants met their burden of proof.
No, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence showing the existence of genuine triable issues of material fact after the defendants met their initial burden.
“It is stated there that the moving party has the burden of conclusively proving that there does not exist genuine issues of material fact to be tried; When the moving party has fulfilled this requirement then the party moved against must come forward and present sufficient evidence showing the existence of genuine triable issues of material fact or suffer a summary judgment against him.”
This quote explains the burden-shifting standard for summary judgment proceedings.
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 appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, who were co-executors of an estate. The trial court found that the defen…
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
The question which confronts us on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in defendant-.appellees' favor.
Our Supreme Court in a recent decision, Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966) has reiterated the rule to be followed in a summary judgment proceeding. It is stated there that the moving party has the burden of conclusively proving that there does not exist genuine issues of material fact to be tried; When the moving party has fulfilled this requirement then the party moved against must come forward and present sufficient evidence showing the existence of genuine triable issues of material fact or suffer a summary judgment against him.
It was the trial judge's opinion and we agree that the defendant had met the burden of proving the non-existence of a genuine triable issue of material fact. Plaintif f-appellant having failed to come forward and prove the existence of a genuine triable issue of material fact the entry of summary judgment for the defendant was warranted. The trial judge entered a thorough and comprehensive order stating in detail the case law and statutory law upon which he relied in reaching his decision. We find no error in same.
Since reversible error has not been made to appear in this cause, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emil Biro v. Geiser, 199 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1967)…instruments law, Sec. 674.27, supra. The decision of the appellate court is quashed and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. THORNAL, C. J., and O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . 193 So. 2d 51. . Ibid, p. 52. . Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla.1967, 193 So. 2d 601; Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So. 2d 40. . “Actions upon negotiable and other instruments; consideration, etc. — All bonds, notes, covenants, deeds, bills of exchange, and other i…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)