CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,

v.

PEGGY LAGER, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (42 total)

• Jenkins v. Brackin, 171 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
  …front of the vegetable bin. In .addition, giving the most favorable inference to the affidavit of the defendant’s “helper, as we are required to do, Haley v. Harvey Building, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 330; Warring v. Winn Dixie Stores, Fla. App.1958, 105 So. 2d 915, it may be inferred -that, since it was his duty to sweep the floor, .•and he had not performed the duty since 4:00 P.M., the floor had not been inspected subsequent to that time. Add to this the controversy over the time the plaintiffs were in the…
• Edsel Posey v. Pensacola Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc., 138 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
  …ion fail to overcome every theory upon which, under the pleadings, the adversary’s position might be sustained. Palov v. Florida Power & Light Co. (Fla.), 107 So. 2d 780; Buck v. Hardy (Fla.), 106 So. 2d 428; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores (Fla.App.), 105 So. 2d 915; Farrey v. Bettendorf (Fla.), 96 So. 2d 889; Jones v. Stoutenburgh (Fla.), 91 So. 2d 299; Manning v. Clark (Fla.), 71 So. 2d 508; 6 Moore’s Fed. Practice (2nd Ed.), par. 56.15(3), p. 2123. Appellee takes the position that plaintiff’s deposition, ta…
• Elva Buck and Lawrence Buck v. Hardy, 106 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
  …nt, is upon the defendant-movants. The Court in ruling on the motion is required to draw all reasonable inferences of fact from the proofs proffered in favor of the adversary and against the movant. Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 915; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd Ed.), par. 56.15(3), p. 2123. The only proof proffered by the defendant was the depositions of the plaintiffs. Applying the foregoing rule of law then under the basic facts established by the testimony of the plaint…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 4 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1941)