Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

693 So. 2d 631

Docket No. 96-929.

Collazo v. Hupert

Dulce COLLAZO, etc., Appellant, v. John Joseph HUPERT, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 2, 1997.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-04-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“discovery was still pending, the trial court should not have entertained a motion for summary judgment until such discovery was concluded.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Henderson v. Reyes

Relies on 510 So. 2d 637 - Singer v. Star · 657 So. 2d 932 - Brandauer v. Publix Super Markets · 445 So. 2d 704 - Danna v. Bay Steel Corporation

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2012

8 state decisions

40199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Ratiner & Glinn; Arnold R. Ginsberg and Todd R. Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Kubicki, Draper and Angela C. Flowers, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of driver John Joseph Hupert, defendant below, in this vehicle collision case. Because discovery was still pending, the trial court should not have entertained a motion for summary judgment until such discovery was concluded. Brandauer v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.,657 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Sica v. Sam Caliendo Design, Inc.,623 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Singer v. Star,510 So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Danna v. Bay Steel Corp.,445 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Plaintiff, a passenger in the truck which collided with Hupert's vehicle, objected on this basis and apprised the court that several witnesses, including the parties' respective accident reconstruction experts, were scheduled for deposition later the same month. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment under review and remand for completion of discovery following which defendant may renew his motion for summary judgment.

/693/so2d/631 · .json · Public domain