Baboun v. Royal Atlas Corp.

287 So. 2d 407
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 21, 1973
Docket73-947
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 287 So. 2d 407 (Baboun v. Royal Atlas 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
Baboun v. Royal Atlas Corp., 287 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

287 So.2d 407 (1973)

Rudolph BABOUN et al., Appellants,
v.
ROYAL ATLAS CORP., a New York Corporation, and Atlantis Realty, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 73-947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 21, 1973.

Jones, Blitstein & Aschenbrenner, Miami, and Allen L. Jacobi, Miami Beach, for appellants.

High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby and Norman S. Segall, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal taken by defendants is from the entry of an order of the circuit court, after evidentiary hearing, enjoining defendants from withdrawing, transferring or otherwise taking any action with respect to certain stocks or accounts at Pan American Bank or Walston & Company, until further order of the court, and requiring plaintiffs to post bond in the sum of $25,000.00.

Appellants urge reversal on the grounds that (1) injunction was an improper remedy; (2) the evidence presented at the hearing failed to support plaintiffs' right to an injunction, and that the trial judge abused his discretion in setting bond at only $25,000.00.

We have considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.

The granting or dismissing of injunctions is lodged in the sound judicial discretion of the courts to be governed by the nature and circumstances of each case. Such orders will not be disturbed on review unless they are contrary to some rule of equity or the result of improvident exercise of judicial power. For the reasons stated the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Diaz v. Timkee
589 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Davis v. Joyner
409 So. 2d 1193 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Martinez v. Tamayo
374 So. 2d 611 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
City of Miami Beach v. Sussman
345 So. 2d 1098 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Damsey v. Mankowitz
339 So. 2d 282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Sadowski v. Shevin
351 So. 2d 44 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
287 So. 2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baboun-v-royal-atlas-corp-fladistctapp-1973.