Belhomme v. Bertrand

774 So. 2d 760, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15193, 2000 WL 1728265
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 22, 2000
DocketNo. 3D00-2153
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 774 So. 2d 760 (Belhomme v. Bertrand) 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
Belhomme v. Bertrand, 774 So. 2d 760, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15193, 2000 WL 1728265 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the plaintiff met her burden of showing the essential elements necessary for the issuance of a temporary injunction, namely, “a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit, the likelihood of irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, and a substantial likelihood of success of the merits,” Oxford Int’l Bank & Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we affirm the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Johnson v. LaSalle
774 So. 2d 760 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
774 So. 2d 760, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15193, 2000 WL 1728265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belhomme-v-bertrand-fladistctapp-2000.