Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams

693 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4919, 1997 WL 228572

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1997

DocketNo. 97-936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 673 (Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams) 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

Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4919, 1997 WL 228572 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We interpret the temporary injunction as restraining appellant Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc., from enforcement of the non-competition clause set forth in paragraph 13 of the employment agreement and with that clarification, affirm the temporary injunction.

Anesthesia Group argues that certain of the findings in the temporary injunction are in error. We need not consider those claims in this proceeding, as the claimed errors would not affect the result. This court’s affirmance is without prejudice to appellant to assert its legal position regarding the applicable contracts, and the correct interpretation thereof, in subsequent proceedings. See Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 423 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

On the question of injunction bond, we note the concession of appellee Dr. Charles Hyams that Anesthesia Group may reopen that issue upon a change in circumstances.

On the claim that the trial court erroneously denied the motion to dissolve, we note that the motion was part of, and in substance was, a motion to reconsider the temporary injunction. It is our view that the trial court’s ruling does not preclude submission of a proper motion to dissolve.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We interpret the temporary injunction as restraining appellant Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc., from enforcement of the non-competition clause set forth in paragraph 13 of the employment agreement and with that clarification, affirm the temporary injunction.

Anesthesia Group argues that certain of the findings in the temporary injunction are in error. We need not consider those claims in this proceeding, as the claimed errors would not affect the result. This court’s affirmance is without prejudice to appellant to assert its legal position regarding the applicable contracts, and the correct interpretation thereof, in subsequent proceedings. See Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 423 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

On the question of injunction bond, we note the concession of appellee Dr. Charles Hyams that Anesthesia Group may reopen that issue upon a change in circumstances.

On the claim that the trial court erroneously denied the motion to dissolve, we note that the motion was part of, and in substance was, a motion to reconsider the temporary injunction. It is our view that the trial court’s ruling does not preclude submission of a proper motion to dissolve.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 673, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4919, 1997 WL 228572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anesthesia-group-of-miami-inc-v-hyams-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack