HARDY J. OWENS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Beikirch v. City OF Jacksonville Beach, 159 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
  …end that controverted issues of fact be resolved not upon pleadings and depositions but by a jury functioning under proper instructions. See Smith v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla., 87 So. 2d 581; National Airlines v. Florida Equipment Co., Fla., 71 So. 2d 741. * * *" After quoting the second sentence in the above quotation from the Drahota case, the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, in Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 133 So. 2d 651 (1961), related that rule to negligence actio…
• Norris F. Baskin and Ola G. Baskin v. Griffith, 127 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
  …courts. The function of this rule is to avoid the expense and delay of trials when all the facts are admitted or a party is unable to support a fact contention by any competent evidence. National Airlines v. Florida Equipment Co. of Miami, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 741. As the name indicates, the procedure is “summary” in nature and it can, and often is, employed to bring a quick end to a plaintiff’s cause of action or his opponent’s defense. On hearing a motion for summary judgment or summary final decree, under…
• Pearson v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 187 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
  …with the letter and spirit of the said Rule 1.36 and the decisional law of this state. [*347] The function of the rule authorizing •summary judgments, as the Supreme Court of Florida held in National Airlines, Inc. V. Florida Equipment Co. of Miami, 71 So. 2d 741 (1954), “is to avoid the expense and delay of trials when all facts are admitted or when a party is unable to support by any competent evidence a contention of fact.” In the case at bar we think that the Circuit Court well performed that function by…