R. DIANE BURLINGHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA GILMER ALLEN, ALSO KNOWN AS PATRICIA ANN GILMER, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Judgment Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellee Grusmark moved for a summary judgment, whereupon appellant sought to have the court consider, in passing upon the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, certain depositions taken in another case to which appellee was not a party. Appellee received no notice of the taking of the depositions in the other case, was not present, was not represented and had no opportunity to cross examine the deponent. In considering a motion for summary judgment the trial judge is authorized to consider only those things and matters authorized by Rule 1.510 RCP. He was eminently correct in refusing to consider the above mentioned depositions which were never even filed in the case sub judice.
Finding the other points raised by appellant to be without merit, the summary judgment here appealed is
Affirmed.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Cal. Funding, Inc. v. Hutto, 438 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…revented them from showing a genuine issue of fact by refusing to consider portions of a deposition given by Hill in another case. The trial judge rejected the proffered deposition, apparently relying on this court’s decision in Burlingham v. Allen, 317 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We agree that the trial judge was probably in error in rejecting the deposition. It would seem that the trial judge could properly take notice, under Section 90.202(6), Florida Statutes (1981) of a deposition taken and actually…