CITY OF ORLANDO, APPELLANT,
v.
G. C. ASHLOCK AND MARY ASHLOCK, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the City of Orlando regarding sewage treatment plant compliance, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding compliance with state sewage treatment standards.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding a party's compliance with regulatory standards.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Summary judgment is appropriate only if the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law.”
The court stated the standard for summary judgment eligibility, citing Shaffran v. Holness.
The City of Orlando and the Ashlocks moved for summary judgment regarding whether the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Plant complied with state standard…
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 Regulatory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Orange County. All parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact, partially granted appellees’ motion and mandatorily enjoined the City of Orlando to develop and implement plans to bring the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Plant into compliance with state standards by June 1, 1976, and further required the City to report periodically on the progress being made toward that end.
Disputed factual issues may not be tried or resolved in a summary judgment proceeding. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law. Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla.1957). We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal in this case and find that there are genuine issues of fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment. Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Shollenberger v. Baskin, 227 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALDERMAN and DAUKSCH, JJ., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dawson v. Scheben, 351 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…jury trial. The other order granted summary judgment for the third party defendants on Dawson’s claim for contribution. We reverse both orders. The record shows that factual issues exist which preclude summary judgments. City of Orlando v. Ashlock, 342 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Additionally, different inferences might be drawn even from some of the undisputed facts. Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Schneider, 349 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed August 23, 1977). REVERSED and REMANDED. DOWNEY and L…
Authorities Cited
- Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1957)
- Osceola Cnty. v. Goodman, 276 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Shollenberger v. Baskin, 227 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Byrd v. State, 264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Hobby v. Scott, 298 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)