City of Hallandale v. Acmar Engineering Corp.

447 So. 2d 454, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12439
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 28, 1984·No. No. 83-1893·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM. •

Our review of the record satisfies us that the actions of the appellant caused appel-lees to prepare additional sheets and supplements to their plans in an effort to meet appellant’s objections. Such actions amounted to a change in circumstances which necessitated the trial court’s action in entering its interim order which extended the time for compliance with the final judgment granting an injunction. We find that the trial judge acted properly and within his discretion. See, Jackson Grain Co. et al. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143 (1942).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

City of Hallandale v. Acmar Engineering Corp., 447 So. 2d 454, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12439 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

447 So. 2d 454 (City of Hallandale v. Acmar Engineering Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Security Management Corp. v. Markham
516 So. 2d 959 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)