OSCAR L. FORSYTH, PETITIONER,

v.

NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
  …this statement of law, we find it inapplicable to the instant cause where respondent has initially failed to meet its task of proving the requirements of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161, 163-64 (Fla.lst DCA 1971), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1971). In the instant case, there were genuine issues of material fact. Petitioners assert in their complaint that a Sears’ employee instructed Mrs. Wills to mount the demonstration bicycle. Respondent directly controverts this fact by answeri…
• Elison v. Goodman, 395 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …exception to this principle which arises when there is a “credible explanation by the affiant as to the reason for the discrepancy between his earlier and later opinions." [e. s.] Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1971).1 The affidavit did recite that Elison had changed his mind about the key date after examining certain insurance documents to which he had referred in the deposition.2 However, the papers were not themselves attached to the affidavit and…
• Ondo v. F. Gary Gieseke, P.A., 697 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …85). A limited exception to this rule arises where there is a “credible explanation by the affiant as to the reason for the discrepancy [*924] between his earlier and later opinions.” Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 787 (Fla.1971). An unsubstantiated assertion is not sufficient to overcome the effect of the prior testimony, however, and the explanation must appear either in the affidavit itself or, viewed as a whole, the record must support the explanation. Goodman…