Campbell v. Riggs

7 Citing cases

  1. Delta Imports, LLC v. Wazwaz

    8:21-cv-1897-JSS (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2022)

    . App'x 973 (11th Cir. 2015); see Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So.3d 68, 70-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Summary judgment would be inappropriate in a civil theft action because of the necessity of finding intent, which should normally be resolved by the finder of fact.”); Freestream Aircraft USA Ltd., 2018 WL 2451189, at *11 (finding summary judgment inappropriate as to a civil theft claim because criminal intent cannot be established by way of undisputed material facts). Here, because Defendant's intent is a question for the fact finder, granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's civil theft claim would be inappropriate.

  2. Homeward Real Estate, Inc. v. Shoubaki

    346 So. 3d 144 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (citation omitted) (quoting Young v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 205 So. 3d 790, 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) )); Campbell v. Riggs , 310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("[A] party moving for summary judgment must conclusively show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and obligates the trial court to draw every reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party." (alteration in original) (quoting Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co. , 660 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) )).

  3. Sterling Mirror Co. v. The Jordon Glass Corp.

    No. 3D19-2183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2022)

    Affirmed. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormand Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) ("Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So.2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006) ("Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings."); Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So.3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried." (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966))); Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So.3d 602, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("[W]hen a decree of the trial court is brought . . . on appeal the duty rests upon the appealing party to make error clearly appear."

  4. Sterling Mirror Co. v. Jordon Glass Corp.

    346 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Affirmed. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) ("Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006) ("Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings."); Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried." (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966) )); Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("[W]hen a decree of the trial court is brought ... on appeal the duty rests upon the appealing party to make error clearly appear."

  5. Blinn v. Arry Dewayne Bailey Miscovitch

    No. 21-P-773 (Mass. App. Ct. May. 16, 2022)

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment because, as the judge concluded and the defendants did not contest in their opening brief, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff trustees' remaining claims. See Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So.3d 68, 70-71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021). The dispute as to whether Thomas intended Susan's adult adopted child to inherit under the trusts is one that is especially ill-suited to decision on summary judgment.

  6. Doral Health Ctr., P.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

    No. 3D21-37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 7, 2021)

    This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." (citing City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978))); see also Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So.3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried." (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966))); Raven v. Roosevelt REO U.S. LLC, 278 So.3d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("Summary judgment is proper . . . where the moving party shows conclusively that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  7. Doral Health Ctr., P.A. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    321 So. 3d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

    This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." (citing City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So. 2d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) )); see also Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) ("[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried." (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966) )); Raven v. Roosevelt REO US LLC, 278 So. 3d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("Summary judgment is proper ... where the moving party shows conclusively that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.