Pandorf v. Longo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pandorf v. Longo

510 So. 2d 1112, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1892, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9751

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1247

StatusPublished

This text of 510 So. 2d 1112 (Pandorf v. Longo) 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

Pandorf v. Longo, 510 So. 2d 1112, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1892, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9751 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David Pandorf, seeks review of a summary judgment granted to the appellees, John Longo, C.J. Longo and Mildred Longo, his wife, and Charles M. Kelly. To appellant’s unsworn amended complaint, Constanzo John Longo, Mildred Longo and Charles M. Kelly filed affidavits, denying the pertinent allegations of the amended complaint. Appellant failed to support the amended complaint with any proof of said allegations to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. John Longo filed a motion for summary judgment, but no sworn proof in support thereof. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate as to him.

Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Constanzo John Longo, Mildred Longo, and Charles M. Kelly is affirmed. The judgment in favor of John Longo is reversed.

DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, David Pandorf, seeks review of a summary judgment granted to the appellees, John Longo, C.J. Longo and Mildred Longo, his wife, and Charles M. Kelly. To appellant’s unsworn amended complaint, Constanzo John Longo, Mildred Longo and Charles M. Kelly filed affidavits, denying the pertinent allegations of the amended complaint. Appellant failed to support the amended complaint with any proof of said allegations to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. John Longo filed a motion for summary judgment, but no sworn proof in support thereof. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate as to him.

Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Constanzo John Longo, Mildred Longo, and Charles M. Kelly is affirmed. The judgment in favor of John Longo is reversed.

DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 1112, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1892, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pandorf-v-longo-fladistctapp-1987.