L & S Food Services, Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L & S Food Services, Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc.

422 So. 2d 45, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1982

DocketNo. 82-206

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 45 (L & S Food Services, Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, 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

L & S Food Services, Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc., 422 So. 2d 45, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

We reverse the final order in favor of appellee Roberts Cafeteria, Inc. on its claim for default of a promissory note, noting that the trial judge weighed the evidence in granting summary judgment. We hold that there did exist issues of material fact for consideration by the factfinder, and thus summary judgment was improper. Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We note also that the issue of fraud, raised by appellants as a defense and counterclaim, is usually considered a jury question and is not ordinarily appropriate for summary judgment proceedings. Levey v. Getelman, 408 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

We reverse the final order in favor of appellee Roberts Cafeteria, Inc. on its claim for default of a promissory note, noting that the trial judge weighed the evidence in granting summary judgment. We hold that there did exist issues of material fact for consideration by the factfinder, and thus summary judgment was improper. Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We note also that the issue of fraud, raised by appellants as a defense and counterclaim, is usually considered a jury question and is not ordinarily appropriate for summary judgment proceedings. Levey v. Getelman, 408 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 45, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-s-food-services-inc-v-roberts-cafeteria-inc-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack