City of Homestead v. Ramirez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Homestead v. Ramirez

621 So. 2d 548, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7371, 1993 WL 259332

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1604

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 621 So. 2d 548 (City of Homestead v. Ramirez) 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

City of Homestead v. Ramirez, 621 So. 2d 548, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7371, 1993 WL 259332 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

City of Homestead [“City”] appeals an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction. We reverse.

Luis Ramirez, along with several other mobile ice cream vendors, filed a petition for writ of prohibition and a complaint for injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of a City ordinance prohibiting mobile vendors from operating within City limits. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for, a temporary injunction and entered an order that states: “Ordered and adjudged that Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby Granted. This Court enjoins the Defendant, City of Homestead, from implementing Ordinance 92-05-23 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the day of this order.”

We hold that the injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Russo v. Romano, 591 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order granting the injunction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

City of Homestead [“City”] appeals an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction. We reverse.

Luis Ramirez, along with several other mobile ice cream vendors, filed a petition for writ of prohibition and a complaint for injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of a City ordinance prohibiting mobile vendors from operating within City limits. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for, a temporary injunction and entered an order that states: “Ordered and adjudged that Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby Granted. This Court enjoins the Defendant, City of Homestead, from implementing Ordinance 92-05-23 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the day of this order.”

We hold that the injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Russo v. Romano, 591 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order granting the injunction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 So. 2d 548, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7371, 1993 WL 259332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-homestead-v-ramirez-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack