EDWARD BYRD, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Osceola Cnty. v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
  …where counsel stipulate for the use of summary judgment procedure [*211] (or both move for it as here) the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 85. Here plaintiff, on May 14, 1968, applied to the Osceola County Planning Commission for approval of his proposed plan to develop a mobile home park and travel trailer arena on a seventeen acre tract of land which he was then considering purchasing.…
• Clark v. Munroe, 407 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
  …of a summary judgment procedure, or both move for it, the stipulation is not binding on the court where the prerequisites for summary judgment are not met. Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co., 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We do not interpret the above rule as authorizing the trial court to accept such a stipulation where the record reveals disputed issues of material facts. The parties cannot by stipulation control questions of law. Massachusetts…
• Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
  …s exist in certain circumstances (as here) even where the evidence is uncontradicted if such evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences. Osceola County v. Goodman, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 210; Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 85; Coquina Ridge Properties v. East West Company, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 279. See also 30 Fla.Jur., Summary Judgment, sec. 10. The issues involved herein ought to be more fully developed at a regular trial. [*437] Accordingly, the summary final judg…

Authorities Cited

• Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)