Moore v. Freeman

396 So. 2d 276
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 7, 1981
Docket80-1755
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 396 So. 2d 276 (Moore v. Freeman) 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
Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

396 So.2d 276 (1981)

James I. MOORE, Jr., Appellant,
v.
William A. FREEMAN, Jr., Sheriff of Monroe County, Sgt. Robert Gregory, Det. Ronald C. Rexroat, Det. Michael Barber, and Corporal John K. Noonan, Appellees.

No. 80-1755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 7, 1981.

Ezzo, Garel & Saylor, Miami, for appellant.

Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark & Skelding, Tallahassee, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

James I. Moore, Jr. takes this appeal from a summary final judgment entered by the Circuit Court in and for Monroe County, Florida in favor of defendants William A. Freeman, Jr., Sheriff of Monroe County, Sergeant Robert Gregory, Detective Ronald C. Rexroat, Detective Michael Barber and Corporal John K. Noonan, in an action brought by plaintiff against the defendants arising out of injures sustained by plaintiff when he was shot by one of the officers while he was attempting to burglarize the Buccaneer Lodge.

The record before us discloses that the summary final judgment appealed was entered for the defendants before plaintiff, through no fault of his own, had completed his discovery.

Plaintiff contends on appeal that the entry of summary judgment was premature since he had insufficient time to commence discovery and complete discovery. We agree and reverse. Cullen v. Big Daddy's Lounges, Inc., 364 So.2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Since we are reversing the entry of summary judgment solely on the grounds that the ruling was premature, we have not considered the other points raised.

Reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings which may include further motions for summary final judgment.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

Related

Fleet Finance & Mortg., Inc. v. Carey
707 So. 2d 949 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp.
626 So. 2d 263 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Avila v. PACINDAT MUTUAL PROT. & INDEMNITY ASS'N, LTD.
528 So. 2d 510 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Singer v. Star
510 So. 2d 637 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Bellwether Properties, L.P. v. Perimeter Acoustical & Walls, Inc.
508 So. 2d 733 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
A & B Pipe and Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp.
500 So. 2d 261 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Sewell v. Flynn
459 So. 2d 372 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Le Mieux v. Miami Dade Community College
448 So. 2d 560 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Southern California Funding, Inc. v. Hutto
438 So. 2d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 So. 2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-freeman-fladistctapp-1981.