Reed v. Jim Moran Pontiac, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reed v. Jim Moran Pontiac, Inc.

292 So. 2d 392, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 5, 1974

DocketNo. 73-414

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 So. 2d 392 (Reed v. Jim Moran Pontiac, 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.

Bluebook

Reed v. Jim Moran Pontiac, Inc., 292 So. 2d 392, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Looking at the whole record and the inferences to be gained therefrom, it is our view that there were genuine issues as to material facts that stood in, the way of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rule 1.510 F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., Marden v. Marden, 276 So.2d 493 (4th D.C.A.Fla. 1973); Playcare, Inc. v. Battaglia, 280 So. 2d 34 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So.2d 152 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Nolan’s Garage, Inc., 262 So.2d 727 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 149 So.2d 898 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1963). More specifically there was an issue as to whether or not defendant’s conduct of its business caused the accumulation of pollutants upon the plaintiff’s premises.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and RUD-NICK, VAUGHN J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Looking at the whole record and the inferences to be gained therefrom, it is our view that there were genuine issues as to material facts that stood in, the way of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Rule 1.510 F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A., Marden v. Marden, 276 So.2d 493 (4th D.C.A.Fla. 1973); Playcare, Inc. v. Battaglia, 280 So. 2d 34 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So.2d 152 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Nolan’s Garage, Inc., 262 So.2d 727 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Williams v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 149 So.2d 898 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1963). More specifically there was an issue as to whether or not defendant’s conduct of its business caused the accumulation of pollutants upon the plaintiff’s premises.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., WALDEN, J., and RUD-NICK, VAUGHN J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 So. 2d 392, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-jim-moran-pontiac-inc-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack