Ramos v. Alvarez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramos v. Alvarez

375 So. 2d 292, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 21232

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1979

DocketNos. 78-1460, 78-1461

StatusPublished

This text of 375 So. 2d 292 (Ramos v. Alvarez) 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

Ramos v. Alvarez, 375 So. 2d 292, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 21232 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Each of the two appellants brought an action in the trial court. Both actions grew out of the same factual basis and were consolidated for trial. The appeals fr.om the judgments entered in each of the consolidated actions have also been consolidated.

In each case, the plaintiffs dismissed two defendants through general releases. The remaining two defendants then entered an amended answer pleading the general releases, thereafter moving for a summary judgment on the basis of the releases. No affidavits or other motions were filed and the trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants. Therefore, the simple legal question presented was whether the remaining defendants were entitled to a summary judgment pursuant to the general releases.

We hold that the summary judgment was proper under the following holdings: Hurt v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 354 So.2d 918 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Weatherford v. Ryder Truck Rental and Leasing, Inc., 344 So.2d 937 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Dean v. Bennett M. Lifter, Inc., 336 So.2d 393 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); and Hester v. Gatlin, 332 So.2d 660 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). But see the holding in Alexander v. Kirkham, 365 So.2d 1038 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), which was appealed upon a somewhat different legal posture.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Each of the two appellants brought an action in the trial court. Both actions grew out of the same factual basis and were consolidated for trial. The appeals fr.om the judgments entered in each of the consolidated actions have also been consolidated.

In each case, the plaintiffs dismissed two defendants through general releases. The remaining two defendants then entered an amended answer pleading the general releases, thereafter moving for a summary judgment on the basis of the releases. No affidavits or other motions were filed and the trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants. Therefore, the simple legal question presented was whether the remaining defendants were entitled to a summary judgment pursuant to the general releases.

We hold that the summary judgment was proper under the following holdings: Hurt v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 354 So.2d 918 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Weatherford v. Ryder Truck Rental and Leasing, Inc., 344 So.2d 937 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Dean v. Bennett M. Lifter, Inc., 336 So.2d 393 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); and Hester v. Gatlin, 332 So.2d 660 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). But see the holding in Alexander v. Kirkham, 365 So.2d 1038 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), which was appealed upon a somewhat different legal posture.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 So. 2d 292, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 21232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-alvarez-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack