Moraski v. City of Hollywood

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moraski v. City of Hollywood

572 So. 2d 1038, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1991 WL 4315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 1991

DocketNo. 89-3041

StatusPublished

This text of 572 So. 2d 1038 (Moraski v. City of Hollywood) 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

Moraski v. City of Hollywood, 572 So. 2d 1038, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1991 WL 4315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of the City of Hollywood’s Pension and Disability Ordinance and its application to an injured city employee. At oral argument the appellee conceded that not all applicable and material portions of the ordinances being construed were in the record before this court nor had they been available to the trial court. We find that the ordinance is ambiguous and that the omission of material portions precluded the trial court from concluding this proceeding by way of summary judgment. Furthermore, appellee has not refuted appellant’s allegations that various employees of the city had represented to appellant that he would be covered under the disability plan at the higher rate. This raises issues of contract with respect to appellant’s employment which have nowhere been addressed.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

This appeal concerns the proper interpretation of the City of Hollywood’s Pension and Disability Ordinance and its application to an injured city employee. At oral argument the appellee conceded that not all applicable and material portions of the ordinances being construed were in the record before this court nor had they been available to the trial court. We find that the ordinance is ambiguous and that the omission of material portions precluded the trial court from concluding this proceeding by way of summary judgment. Furthermore, appellee has not refuted appellant’s allegations that various employees of the city had represented to appellant that he would be covered under the disability plan at the higher rate. This raises issues of contract with respect to appellant’s employment which have nowhere been addressed.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 1038, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1991 WL 4315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moraski-v-city-of-hollywood-fladistctapp-1991.