Lanning v. Pepsico, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lanning v. Pepsico, Inc.

683 So. 2d 192, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12312, 1996 WL 670296

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 20, 1996·No. No. 96-502·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find that summary judgment was prematurely entered where the scant record to date indicates the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was an agency relationship based upon the dealings between the parties. E.g., Moore v. River Ranch, Inc., 642 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc., 469 So.2d 955, 956-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Further discovery, however, may conclusively resolve this issue; therefore, our reversal is without prejudice to appellees to renew their motion for summary judgment if a more developed record so warrants the same.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find that summary judgment was prematurely entered where the scant record to date indicates the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether there was an agency relationship based upon the dealings between the parties. E.g., Moore v. River Ranch, Inc., 642 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Braidi Trading Co. v. Anthony R. Abraham Enters., Inc., 469 So.2d 955, 956-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Further discovery, however, may conclusively resolve this issue; therefore, our reversal is without prejudice to appellees to renew their motion for summary judgment if a more developed record so warrants the same.

Reversed.

Lanning v. Pepsico, Inc., 683 So. 2d 192, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12312, 1996 WL 670296 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

683 So. 2d 192 (Lanning v. Pepsico, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related