Cone v. Anderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cone v. Anderson

944 So. 2d 1073, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2006 WL 2986471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 20, 2006

DocketNo. 1D06-327

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 944 So. 2d 1073 (Cone v. Anderson) 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

Cone v. Anderson, 944 So. 2d 1073, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2006 WL 2986471 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

“[T]he lower court’s compliance with the requirements of law when issuing an injunction is a matter within the purview of a reviewing court.” United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see Terex Trailer Corp. v. [1074]*1074McIlwain, 579 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“An appellate court has broad authority to review nonfinal orders concerning injunctive relief, even extending to orders subject to characterization as an order ‘in the nature of a mandatory injunction under Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).’ ” (quoting Seigle v. Barry, 422 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982))).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 governs injunctions. If the language of an order is injunctive in nature, the order must comply with the requirements for the issuance of an injunction, even if the trial court merely intended to preserve the status quo in the order. See Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In the present case, the trial court “enjoined” Cone from seeking any and all compensation until “further order of this Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction.” Clearly, the language of the order is in-junctive in nature. Appellee concedes that the trial court did not comply with rule 1.610. Accordingly, we REVERSE the order and QUASH the injunction.

BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., and SILVERMAN, SCOTT J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

“[T]he lower court’s compliance with the requirements of law when issuing an injunction is a matter within the purview of a reviewing court.” United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see Terex Trailer Corp. v. [1074]*1074McIlwain, 579 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“An appellate court has broad authority to review nonfinal orders concerning injunctive relief, even extending to orders subject to characterization as an order ‘in the nature of a mandatory injunction under Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B).’ ” (quoting Seigle v. Barry, 422 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982))).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 governs injunctions. If the language of an order is injunctive in nature, the order must comply with the requirements for the issuance of an injunction, even if the trial court merely intended to preserve the status quo in the order. See Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In the present case, the trial court “enjoined” Cone from seeking any and all compensation until “further order of this Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction.” Clearly, the language of the order is in-junctive in nature. Appellee concedes that the trial court did not comply with rule 1.610. Accordingly, we REVERSE the order and QUASH the injunction.

BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., and SILVERMAN, SCOTT J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

944 So. 2d 1073, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2006 WL 2986471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cone-v-anderson-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack