Blaine v. Cutliff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blaine v. Cutliff

596 So. 2d 1299, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5141, 1992 WL 91381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1992

DocketNo. 91-362

StatusPublished

This text of 596 So. 2d 1299 (Blaine v. Cutliff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blaine v. Cutliff, 596 So. 2d 1299, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5141, 1992 WL 91381 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court was correct, as a matter of law, in granting the appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment in connection with the defamation count filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff below. Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Company, 75 So.2d 198 (Fla.1954); Ponzoli & Wassenberg v. Zuckerman, 545 So.2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 554 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1989); Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

However, we find that genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to the other counts filed by the appellant, thereby precluding their propriety of the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the appellees. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Accordingly, with the exception of the portion of the summary judgment rendered to the defamation count, the entry of the summary judgment is reversed with this cause being remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI