George G. Sharp, Inc. v. Doric Marine, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

George G. Sharp, Inc. v. Doric Marine, Inc.

544 So. 2d 228, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1657, 1989 WL 30809

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 228 (George G. Sharp, Inc. v. Doric Marine, Inc.) 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

George G. Sharp, Inc. v. Doric Marine, Inc., 544 So. 2d 228, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1657, 1989 WL 30809 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), requires that a motion for summary judgment “state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued.” Where, as here, the motion and affidavits are based only on a statute of limitations defense, the movant is not entitled to a summary judgment based on laches, a different affirma[229]*229tive defense. See 35 Fla.Jur.2d Limitations and Laches § 93 (1982) (citing Cook v. Central & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 114 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)) (laches must be plead affirmatively). See also, Note, The Doctrine of Laches in Florida: A Statutory Hybrid, 13 Stetson L.Rev. 446, 449 (1984) (“In contrast to the statute of limitations which is applicable at law, the equitable doctrine of laches is not based solely on the passage of time.”) (citing Wiggins v. Lykes Bros., 97 So.2d 273 (Fla.1957); Tower v. Moskowitz, 262 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So.2d 906 (Fla.1972)).

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), requires that a motion for summary judgment “state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be argued.” Where, as here, the motion and affidavits are based only on a statute of limitations defense, the movant is not entitled to a summary judgment based on laches, a different affirma[229]*229tive defense. See 35 Fla.Jur.2d Limitations and Laches § 93 (1982) (citing Cook v. Central & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 114 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)) (laches must be plead affirmatively). See also, Note, The Doctrine of Laches in Florida: A Statutory Hybrid, 13 Stetson L.Rev. 446, 449 (1984) (“In contrast to the statute of limitations which is applicable at law, the equitable doctrine of laches is not based solely on the passage of time.”) (citing Wiggins v. Lykes Bros., 97 So.2d 273 (Fla.1957); Tower v. Moskowitz, 262 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 268 So.2d 906 (Fla.1972)).

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 228, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1657, 1989 WL 30809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-g-sharp-inc-v-doric-marine-inc-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack