as a matter of law.” Maynard, 861 So.2d at 1206. The improper stacking of inferences may be an appropriate basis for the entry of summary judgment. See, e.g., Cohen v. Arvin, 878 So.2d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). With respect to the stacking of inferences, the Florida Supreme Court in Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla.1960), explained that if a party to a civil action depends upon the inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. See also Sch. Bd. of Broward County v. Beharrie, 695 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>). In discussing reasonable inferences, the
holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence recognizing the rule in nielsen and reversing based on the improper stacking of inferences a final judgment after jury trial recognizing the general rule which permits judicial notice of a courts prior cases to support a motion for summary judgment but reversing because in his order the trial judge made no specific reference to the basis for his grant of summary judgment holding that we will not review under any standard the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and final judgment on the merits recognizing that a default judgment based on improper service is void