BARTLETT CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
COASTAL PLAINS, INC. AND FLORIDA MINING AND MATERIALS CORP., 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 held that the notice requirement for summary judgment is not jurisdictional and that no genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Appellant appealed a summary final judgment granted to appellees. Appellant argued the trial court erred by not providing the required notice for a pr…
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 Pretrial Conference cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals from a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees, defendants below.
Appellant firstly contends that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment at pre-trial conference in that the twenty (20) day notice requirement found in both Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.200(b) and 1.510(c), pertaining to pre-trial conferences and summary judgments, respectively, had not been observed by the court. Secondly, appellant contends that there existed certain genuine issues of material fact precluding the rendition of summary judgment.
As for appellant’s first point, a review of the record discloses that the trial court, by order dated September 8, 1976, scheduled the pre-trial conference for September 17, 1976. The record is, however, devoid of any objection voiced by appellant concerning the premature scheduling of the conference. In that (1) the notice requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c) is not jurisdictional, (2) appellant failed to object to the abbreviated time span and (3) implicit in every pre-trial conference is the possibility that summary judgment might be rendered, appellant’s contention must be rejected. Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1956); Blatch v. Wesley, 238 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. den., 240 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1970); Raphael v. Koretzky, 102 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Appellant’s second contention must be likewise rejected in that, by virtue of the record placed before this court, there are no genuine issues of material fact left unresolved by the proceedings below and it conclusively appears that appellees are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the record, all points raised in the briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that the final judgment appealed from must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bertie M. Brewer v. Clerk OF the Cir. Court, 720 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…d to notice of the summary judgment hearing. See, e.g., Wong v. Crown Equip. Corp., 676 So. 2d 981, 981-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Ultimate Corp. v. CG Data Corp., 575 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In particular, in the 33 pages of transcript from the hearing, appellant’s attorney actively argued her position that she had properly complied with chapter 760. In support of the motion, appellee introduced, with no object…
-
Wong v. Crown Equip. Corp. & Life Sys., Inc., 676 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Burns v. Consolidated Am. Ins. Co., 359 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 353 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1978); Bartlett Constr., Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); cf. Locke v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 509 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Second, the plaintiff contends that on the record before the trial court the defendants were not otherwise entitled to summary judgment. The trial…
-
Robbins v. Dep't OF Natural Res., 468 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…otherwise. See Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1956); Bess v. 17545 Collins Avenue, Inc., 98 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1957); Compass Enterprises, Inc. v. Earls, 397 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Bartlett Construction, Inc. v. Coastal Plains, Inc., 353 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). That authority of the trial court is in recognition of the fact that a pretrial conference might progress to the point where all questions of fact are eliminated thus placing the case in a posture where the entry of judgment as…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1956)
- Raphael v. Koretzky, 102 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Booker T. Washington Barker v. State, 238 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Stafford Blatch v. Wesley, 238 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Jaye-Ron Corp. v. Pozin, 240 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)
- Macio Bernard Simpson v. State, 240 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1970)