JOHNSON
v.
STUDSTILL
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.
Johnson sued Studstill and Townsend for injuries from an automobile accident. The trial court granted Studstill's motion for summary judgment, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that conflicting evidence about vehicle ownership created a genuine factual issue that precluded summary judgment.
The summary judgment for Studstill was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding vehicle ownership. When conflicting evidence appears as to a material fact, summary judgment cannot be granted unless the evidence is too incredible to be accepted by reasonable minds or lacks legal probative force.
“The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Statement of the summary judgment standard that applies in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident occurred involving a vehicle. Evidence was conflicting regarding the ownership of the vehicle at issue: some affidavits suggest…
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 Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
BARNS, Justice.
This cause came on before the trial court to be heard upon a motion by defendant, Howard Studstill, for summary judgment in his favor. Studstill was a co-defendant with Carl Townsend. The motion was granted and the plaintiff-appellant appeals from this judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant, Studstill. In this we find error. Facts.
The suit is one at law sounding in tort growing out of an automobile accident. Some of the affidavits tend to show that the automobile at one time owned by Studstill had been sold to Townsend while a counter-affidavit and a. letter from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner tend to show that the title to a motor vehicle involved in the accident was owned by Studstill. Conclusion.
Common Law Rule 43(c), 30 F.S.A. like Federal Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.Á., provides that, in event of a motion for a summary judgment “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Judge Fahy, speaking for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Dewey v. Clark, 1950, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 137, 180 F. 2d 766 at page 772, summarizes the points to be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, as follows:
“(1) Factual issues are not to be tried or'resolved by summary judgment procedure; only the existence of a genuine and material factual issue is to be determined. Once it is determined that there is such an issue summary judgment may not be granted; (2) In making . this determination doubts (of course the doubts are-not fanciful) are to -be -resolved against the granting of summary judgment; (3) There may be no genuine issue even though there is a formal issue. Neither a purely formal denial nor, in every case, general allegations, defeat summary judgment. On this point the cases decided by this court must rest on their own facts rather than upon a rigid rule that an assertion and a denial always preclude the granting of summary judgment. Those cases stand for the proposition that formalism is not a substitute for the necessity of a real or genuine issue. Whether the situation falls into the category of formalism or genuineness cannot be decided in the abstract; (4) If conflict appears as to a material fact the summary procedure does not apply unless the evidence on one or the other hand is too incredible ,to bé accepted by reasonable minds or is without legal probative force even if true; (5) To support summary judgment the situation must justify a directed verdict insofar as the facts are concerned.”
Applying the foregoing standards, the judgment appealed is reversed.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…mental and traditional processes for determining the rights of litigants. See Shaffran v. Holness, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 94; Jones v. Stoutenburgh, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 299; Manning v. Clark, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 508; and Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 251. The contract specified that the sellers were to furnish an abstract of title to the purchasers upon demand and that the purchasers were required to notify the sellers of any defect in the title which the examination disclosed; and the contract exp…
-
Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1957)….S. A. Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 1.36 may be used only to determine whether or not there is a genuine issue of material fact to be determined. Factual issues may not be tried or resolved in such proceedings. Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 251. And a judgment should not be rendered in such proceedings unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but ques [*98] tions of law. Yost v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 214. Nor is it material that both plaintiff and defenda…
-
Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956)…or weigh facts. Yost v. Miami Transit Co., Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 214. The objective to be accomplished is to determine the existence of a material factual issue. If such an issue is present, the motion should be denied. Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 251. If there is any doubt as to the existence or non-existence of a genuine issue of a material fact, then such doubt must be resolved against the movant. Manning v. Clark, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 508. This is so because the burden is upon the movant to es…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dewey v. Clark, 180 F.2d 766 (D.C. Cir. 1950)