opposing party’s inferences need not be mo , 822 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1994) (stating that “[t]he trial court may not determine factual issues nor consider either the weight of the conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists in a summary judgment proceeding.”); Shapiro v. Barron, 538 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1989) (reasoning that “[j]udg-ing the credibility of witnesses or weighing the evidence are not proper subjects of a motion for summary judgment.”); Kuczkir v. Martell, 480 So.2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1985) (stating that “[w]here the issue of credibility is present, summary judgment is inappropriate.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gant, 460 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>); Strickland v. Strickland, 456 So.2d 583, 584
holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage holding that in determining the propriety of summary judgment credibility determinations may not be made  holding that it goes without saying that a trial judge may not on motion for summary judgment make evidentiary determinations involving the credibility of witnesses holding that it was not error for successor trial judge to direct a judgment for defendant based on the statute of limitations where initial judge had denied a motion for summary judgment on the same issue