NORMAN S. COHEN, M.D., P.A., D/B/A VEIN CLINIC AND CIRCULATION CENTER, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE VINING, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant did not intend to abandon counts one through four of his amended complaint and that the appellee failed to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact.
Appellant sued appellee for improperly divulging trade secrets and proprietary information to a competitor. The trial court entered a summary final ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Proprietary Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a summary final judgment entered against him in his action seeking damages allegedly stemming from appellee’s having improperly divulged trade secrets and other propriety information to a third-party competitor. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that appellant did not intend to abandon counts one through four of his amended complaint, and that appellee failed to carry her burden of demonstrating conclusively the absence of any genuine issue as to any material fact. Accordingly, we reverse.
The law regarding summary judgment is well-established:
[A] party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought.... A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law....
If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it.
Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (citations omitted). Succinctly put, “[wjhen acting upon a motion for summary judgment, if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citations omitted). Here, viewing all reasonable inferences in favor of appellant, we are satisfied that genuine issues of material fact exist as to all counts of the amended complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mallett, 7 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…arded for the debris removal coverage as well as for coverage under the law and ordinance provision must be affirmed. [*556] At the summary judgment stage, a trial court is to enter a judgment only when no issues of fact remain. See Cohen v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The standard of review regarding the grant of final summary judgment is de novo. Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.2005). Here, because the record before us does not exclusively establish that the debris re…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Manning, 966 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…shift to Citizens. On motion for summary judgment, “if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Cohen v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). Because the Mannings failed to make a prima facie showing of coverage under the windstorm policy as construed in conformity with Fl…
-
Ameril Corp. v. NEW York Reg'l Rail Corp., 943 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…resent, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied.” Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citations omitted). Norman S. Cohen, M.D., P.A. v. Vining, 917 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 643 (Fla. 1999)(“It is a well-settled principle of Florida jurisprudence that summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so clear and un…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Jones v. Directors Guild OF Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)