Chereton v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

87 So. 2d 579, 1956 Fla. LEXIS 3734
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 23, 1956·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint raised an issue of fact that was not met by plaintiff’s affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment. So, regardless of the insufficiency of defendant’s counter-affidavit, there remained a genuine issue of fact which should have been tried by a jury.

Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of plaintiff should be and it is hereby reversed under the authority of Williams v. City of Lake City, Fla. 1953, 62 So.2d 732, Wilson v. Bachrach, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 546, and similar cases.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS arid O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

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

Chereton v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 87 So. 2d 579, 1956 Fla. LEXIS 3734 (Fla. 1956).

87 So. 2d 579 (Chereton v. Armstrong Rubber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Algernon Blair Cont. v. Hughes Supply
684 So. 2d 223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Key Bank v. First United Land Title Co.
502 So. 2d 1280 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Steinberg v. Charles Sales Corp.
296 So. 2d 601 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Brownlee
185 So. 2d 480 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
A. & G. Aircraft Service, Inc. v. Drake
143 So. 2d 703 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
National Exhibition Company v. Ball
139 So. 2d 489 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Emile v. First National Bank of Miami
126 So. 2d 305 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Allen Kroblin, Inc. v. Roberts
106 So. 2d 580 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)