JOHN G. BANKS AND ANN H. BANKS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, 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.
This case involves a summary judgment granted against plaintiffs who alleged a defect in a city sidewalk. The appellate court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff wife saw or should have seen the defect.
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether the appellant wife saw or should have seen the alleged defect in the sidewalk.
“The record reveals the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact, namely, whether or not appellant wife saw or should have seen the alleged defect in the sidewalk of the City of Tampa.”
Establishes the core factual dispute that prevented summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs, John G. and Ann H. Banks, sued the City of Tampa alleging a defect in a city sidewalk. The trial court entered a summary judgment against …
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
The record reveals the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact, namely, *889whether or not appellant wife saw or should have seen the alleged defect in the sidewalk of the City of Tampa. Accordingly, the summary judgment entered below against the plaintiffs-appellants should be reversed. Rule 1.36(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Smith v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 581; Delany v. Breeding’s Homestead Drug Co., Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 116; Farrey v. Bettendorf, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 889; Bess v. 17545 Collins Avenue, Inc., Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 490; Buck v. Hardy, Fla.App. 1958, 106 So.2d 428; Mason v. Renick, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 38.
Reversed.
KANNER, C. J., ALLEN, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1957)
- Bess v. 17545 Collins Ave., Inc., 98 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1957)
- Mullis v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1952)
- Delany v. Breeding's Homestead Drug Co., 93 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1957)
- Elva Buck and Lawrence Buck v. Hardy, 106 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Burt John Mason v. Remick, 107 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- LaForrest A. Smith v. Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc., 87 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1956)