Adams v. C. B. R. Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. C. B. R. Corp.

198 So. 2d 638, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4776

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 2, 1967

DocketNo. 67-13

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 2d 638 (Adams v. C. B. R. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. C. B. R. Corp., 198 So. 2d 638, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4776 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By suit in the circuit court in Dade County the plaintiffs sought relief in equity against the appellants and other named defendants, for alleged unfair competition through breach of confidential relationship. After hearing on notice, the trial court granted temporary injunction against the defendants John C. Adams, Zoltán Haydu and John Eubanks, and said defendants filed this interlocutory appeal therefrom. On consideration of the record and the briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the entry of a temporary injunction did not constitute reversible error. Our holding that the showing made by plaintiffs on their application for temporary injunction was sufficient to support such action by the trial court pendente lite, is not to be construed as a decision or ruling by this court on the issues of fact or the applicable questions of law, which are to be tried and determined on final hearing by the circuit court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

By suit in the circuit court in Dade County the plaintiffs sought relief in equity against the appellants and other named defendants, for alleged unfair competition through breach of confidential relationship. After hearing on notice, the trial court granted temporary injunction against the defendants John C. Adams, Zoltán Haydu and John Eubanks, and said defendants filed this interlocutory appeal therefrom. On consideration of the record and the briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the entry of a temporary injunction did not constitute reversible error. Our holding that the showing made by plaintiffs on their application for temporary injunction was sufficient to support such action by the trial court pendente lite, is not to be construed as a decision or ruling by this court on the issues of fact or the applicable questions of law, which are to be tried and determined on final hearing by the circuit court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 2d 638, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-c-b-r-corp-fladistctapp-1967.