Eadgear, Inc. v. Baca

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eadgear, Inc. v. Baca

93 So. 3d 1246, 2012 WL 3326468, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13558

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-6743

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 3d 1246 (Eadgear, Inc. v. Baca) 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

Eadgear, Inc. v. Baca, 93 So. 3d 1246, 2012 WL 3326468, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13558 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

“An injunctive order should never be broader than is necessary to secure the injured party, without injustice to the adversary, relief warranted by the circumstances of the particular case. The order should be adequately particularized, especially where some activities may be permissible and proper.” Clark v. Allied As[1247]*1247socs., Inc., 477 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (citing Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 41 So.2d 865, 871 (Fla.1949)). See also Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So.3d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Injunctions must be specifically tailored to each case and they must not infringe upon conduct that does not produce the harm sought to be avoided.”). Accordingly, paragraphs 12.b.iii. and iv. of the preliminary injunction are stricken. The preliminary injunction is otherwise affirmed, without prejudice to litigation de novo of any question of personal jurisdiction.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

BENTON, C.J., THOMAS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

“An injunctive order should never be broader than is necessary to secure the injured party, without injustice to the adversary, relief warranted by the circumstances of the particular case. The order should be adequately particularized, especially where some activities may be permissible and proper.” Clark v. Allied As[1247]*1247socs., Inc., 477 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (citing Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 41 So.2d 865, 871 (Fla.1949)). See also Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So.3d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Injunctions must be specifically tailored to each case and they must not infringe upon conduct that does not produce the harm sought to be avoided.”). Accordingly, paragraphs 12.b.iii. and iv. of the preliminary injunction are stricken. The preliminary injunction is otherwise affirmed, without prejudice to litigation de novo of any question of personal jurisdiction.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

BENTON, C.J., THOMAS, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 3d 1246, 2012 WL 3326468, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eadgear-inc-v-baca-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack