Autoxcellence, A Paint & Body Facility, Inc. v. C & A Muffler, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Autoxcellence, A Paint & Body Facility, Inc. v. C & A Muffler, Inc.

731 So. 2d 721, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1999

DocketNos. 98-1034, 98-744

StatusPublished

This text of 731 So. 2d 721 (Autoxcellence, A Paint & Body Facility, Inc. v. C & A Muffler, Inc.) 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

Autoxcellence, A Paint & Body Facility, Inc. v. C & A Muffler, Inc., 731 So. 2d 721, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the orders granting C & A Muffler, Inc.’s motion for temporary injunction, and denying Autoxcellence, A Paint and Body Facility, Inc.’s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. Contrary to Autoxeellence’s assertion, we do not interpret the temporary injunction as enjoining performance of routine body work. The language enjoining “muffler or brake services” demonstrates the trial court’s intent that Autoxcellence cease performing or advertising brake and muffler repairs or replacements. However, we are not persuaded that this language mandates that Autoxcellence cease routine body work, which may incidentally require brake and muffler work. See Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders without [722]*722prejudice to the parties asserting their legal positions regarding the lease clauses and their correct interpretations in subsequent proceedings. See Hyams; Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the orders granting C & A Muffler, Inc.’s motion for temporary injunction, and denying Autoxcellence, A Paint and Body Facility, Inc.’s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. Contrary to Autoxeellence’s assertion, we do not interpret the temporary injunction as enjoining performance of routine body work. The language enjoining “muffler or brake services” demonstrates the trial court’s intent that Autoxcellence cease performing or advertising brake and muffler repairs or replacements. However, we are not persuaded that this language mandates that Autoxcellence cease routine body work, which may incidentally require brake and muffler work. See Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders without [722]*722prejudice to the parties asserting their legal positions regarding the lease clauses and their correct interpretations in subsequent proceedings. See Hyams; Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 721, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/autoxcellence-a-paint-body-facility-inc-v-c-a-muffler-inc-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack