James v. Plano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. Plano

520 So. 2d 709, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1988 WL 18678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 1988

DocketNos. 4-86-2400, 4-86-2465

StatusPublished

This text of 520 So. 2d 709 (James v. Plano) 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

James v. Plano, 520 So. 2d 709, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1988 WL 18678 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny the appellee’s motion for rehearing. However, we withdraw our opin[710]*710ion of December 16, 1987, and substitute the following revised opinion:

On the authority of Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), we reverse the summary final judgment and the resulting cost judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Frank Plano d/b/a Gulfstream Masonry (Plano), against the appellant Robert James (James). A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the wall that collapsed resulting in injury to James was negligently constructed by Plano. For this reason, the summary final judgment entered against Milord Development Corporation on its cross claim for contribution and common law indemnity is also reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny the appellee’s motion for rehearing. However, we withdraw our opin[710]*710ion of December 16, 1987, and substitute the following revised opinion:

On the authority of Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), we reverse the summary final judgment and the resulting cost judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Frank Plano d/b/a Gulfstream Masonry (Plano), against the appellant Robert James (James). A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the wall that collapsed resulting in injury to James was negligently constructed by Plano. For this reason, the summary final judgment entered against Milord Development Corporation on its cross claim for contribution and common law indemnity is also reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 709, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 647, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1988 WL 18678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-plano-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack