CHARLES DAVIS
v.
BAY COUNTY JAIL, RICK ANGLIN
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.
Summary judgment was properly entered for appellees because the non-moving party failed to meet the burden of demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[1] A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present evidence, not merely legal argument, to demonstrate the existence of a disputed issue of material fact.
[2] Where a movant for summary judgment offers sufficient evidence to support its claim of the nonexistence of material fact, the opposing party must demonstrate the existenc…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where the moving party offers evidence to support its claim of the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party 'must demonstrate the existence of such an issue or issues either by countervailing facts or justifiable inferences from the facts presented.'”
Court stating the burden on non-moving party in summary judgment proceedings
Charles Davis appealed a summary judgment order entered against him in favor of Bay County Jail and Rick Anglin. The facts necessary to the legal disp…
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
2002) (“Where an order stated that ‘final summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of’ a party, the language was self-executing, did not contemplate any further judicial labor with regard to the rights of the parties and was sufficient to establish finality.”).
Turning to the merits of Davis’s appeal, we conclude that after appellees filed their summary judgment motion, Davis did not meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See RNR Invs. Ltd. P’ship v. Peoples First Cmty. Bank, 812 So. 2d 561, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Where the moving party offers evidence to support its claim of the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party ‘must demonstrate the existence of such an issue or issues either by countervailing facts or justifiable inferences from the facts presented.’” (quoting Fleming v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 667 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995))).
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Charles Davis, pro se, Appellant. Jason Vail of Jolly, Peterson & Truckenbrod, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Fleming v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 667 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Crews v. State, 812 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- RNR Invs. Ltd. P'ship v. Peoples First Cmty. Bank, 812 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)