Dolphin Project, Inc. v. Ocean World, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dolphin Project, Inc. v. Ocean World, Inc.

610 So. 2d 733, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13585, 1992 WL 386564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3176

StatusPublished

This text of 610 So. 2d 733 (Dolphin Project, Inc. v. Ocean World, Inc.) 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

Dolphin Project, Inc. v. Ocean World, Inc., 610 So. 2d 733, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13585, 1992 WL 386564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The order granting the temporary injunction is affirmed. On appeal, several arguments are made that application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1361-1380, requires reversal of [734]*734the injunction. For example, appellant points to 16 U.S.C.A. § 1374 to argue that access to facilities covered by the act may not be limited or restricted other than by charging an admission fee. However, that argument, although raised as an affirmative defense, was not made to the trial court at the temporary injunction hearing nor was there any testimony to support such argument. Moreover, the record is not clear as to whether or not the act even applies to appellee’s facility. Therefore, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to move to dissolve or modify the injunction.

LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion in its place.

The order granting the temporary injunction is affirmed. On appeal, several arguments are made that application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1361-1380, requires reversal of [734]*734the injunction. For example, appellant points to 16 U.S.C.A. § 1374 to argue that access to facilities covered by the act may not be limited or restricted other than by charging an admission fee. However, that argument, although raised as an affirmative defense, was not made to the trial court at the temporary injunction hearing nor was there any testimony to support such argument. Moreover, the record is not clear as to whether or not the act even applies to appellee’s facility. Therefore, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to move to dissolve or modify the injunction.

LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 733, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13585, 1992 WL 386564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolphin-project-inc-v-ocean-world-inc-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack