Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. v. Asensio

509 So. 2d 410, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1704, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9358
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 15, 1987·No. No. 4-86-3113·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary final judgment. We reverse and remand. Not only were the prerequisites for entry of summary judgment not followed, as this court has recited must be done in Osceola County v. Goodman, 276 So.2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company, 264 So.2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), but also we hold that even had those prerequisites been followed, the ambiguity of the contract would have precluded summary judgment. See Royal American Realty, Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Co., 215 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., and LUZZO, JOHN T., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. v. Asensio, 509 So. 2d 410, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1704, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9358 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

509 So. 2d 410 (Therapeutic Technologies, Inc. v. Asensio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Royal American Rlty., Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Tr. Co.
215 So. 2d 336 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Osceola County v. Goodman
276 So. 2d 210 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Co.
264 So. 2d 85 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)