Durable Uniform & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Durable Uniform & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co.

183 So. 2d 226, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5505

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1966

DocketNos. 65-797, 65-798

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 183 So. 2d 226 (Durable Uniform & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co.) 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

Durable Uniform & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., 183 So. 2d 226, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5505 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These interlocutory appeals relate to the propriety, in Case No. 65-797, of a temporary injunction restraining the appellant [defendant in the trial court] from interfering with contractual relationships between the plaintiff-appellee and its customers; and in Case No. 65-798 to the propriety of an order entered in the same cause denying certain discovery proceedings to the defendant and denying its motion to join certain defenses. These cases were consolidated for oral presentation.

We have examined the briefs, appeal papers and appendices and fail to find error in the orders specified in the notices of appeal. The appellant has preserved for review the sufficiency of the complaint. It is apparent that it could he improved upon by more detailed allegations as to factual matters constituting the interference alleged. However, under the authorities, it appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 519; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 464; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 42, p. 84. Elementary in determining the propriety of a temporary injunction is the necessity for the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in its entry. See: North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 347; Curtis Pools, Inc., v. Fulton, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 442; Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 105. As to the temporary injunction, we find no abuse of discretion. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., supra; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., supra. But, this opinion is not to be considered as approving the breadth of same as a permanent injunction in the event the chancellor should be disposed to render such upon final hearing.

We have examined the other points urged by the appellant and find no error in the actions of the chancellor complained of.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the orders here under review are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These interlocutory appeals relate to the propriety, in Case No. 65-797, of a temporary injunction restraining the appellant [defendant in the trial court] from interfering with contractual relationships between the plaintiff-appellee and its customers; and in Case No. 65-798 to the propriety of an order entered in the same cause denying certain discovery proceedings to the defendant and denying its motion to join certain defenses. These cases were consolidated for oral presentation.

We have examined the briefs, appeal papers and appendices and fail to find error in the orders specified in the notices of appeal. The appellant has preserved for review the sufficiency of the complaint. It is apparent that it could he improved upon by more detailed allegations as to factual matters constituting the interference alleged. However, under the authorities, it appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 519; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 464; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 42, p. 84. Elementary in determining the propriety of a temporary injunction is the necessity for the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in its entry. See: North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 347; Curtis Pools, Inc., v. Fulton, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 442; Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 105. As to the temporary injunction, we find no abuse of discretion. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., supra; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., supra. But, this opinion is not to be considered as approving the breadth of same as a permanent injunction in the event the chancellor should be disposed to render such upon final hearing.

We have examined the other points urged by the appellant and find no error in the actions of the chancellor complained of.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, the orders here under review are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 2d 226, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durable-uniform-linen-supply-co-v-sanitary-linen-service-co-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack