Lanning v. Pepsico, Inc.
This text of 683 So. 2d 192 (Lanning v. Pepsico, 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
683 So. 2d 192, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12312, 1996 WL 670296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanning-v-pepsico-inc-fladistctapp-1996.