•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

69

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This article will first explore the origins of summary judgment in the Florida courts. Next, the Holl v. Talcot standard (the "Holl standard") shall be discussed. The discussion then turns to arguments in favor of maintaining the Holl standard, including the great costs which arise by the application of the standard, and ultimately, a discussion debunking those arguments. Finally, partial summary judgment shall be discussed, introducing its potential to assist the practitioner in achieving, in part, progress towards a more predictable and useful summary judgment process. The overriding conclusions of this project are as follows: 1) the Florida Supreme Court should revisit and modify the existing summary judgment standard; 2) the Florida Supreme Court should bring the standard inline with that of most states and the federal courts; and 3) even if the Celotex standard is not adopted, the Florida Supreme Court should articulate a clear analytical standard so that the district courts will have a consistent framework upon which to apply a factual analysis, thus enabling trial courts to make decisions that are not likely to be overturned on appeal. By taking these steps, the courts may assure that civil practitioners will have a reasonable predictability while conducting civil litigation; and summary judgment will become an effective procedural tool-one which can be used to weed-out cases that cannot prevail at trial. In the meantime, practitioners are not helpless to improve their chances of obtaining summary judgment. Through the strategic use of well-planned partial summary judgment motions, lawyers can provide trial court judges with the opportunity to grant such motions without the added concern for immediate appealability. These techniques may allow trial judges to cull needless issues from trial, or possibly stop cases that might not otherwise prevail at trial from being heard.

Download

Share

COinS