F. V. Investments, N. V. v. Sicma Corp.

415 So. 2d 755, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20128
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 18, 1982·No. No. 81-2421·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The preliminary injunction issued pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a) is reversed on two grounds. First, the acts enjoined by the injunction are not specified with such reasonable definiteness and certainty that the defendants bound by the decree would know what they must refrain from doing without the matter being left to speculation and conjecture. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 41 So.2d 865, 871 (Fla.1949). Secondly, the complaint for injunctive relief fails to set forth clearly, definitely, and unequivo[756]*756cally sufficient allegations to warrant the intervention of a court of equity. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 118 So.2d 541 (Fla.1960); Stanton v. Harris, 152 Fla. 736, 13 So.2d 17 (Fla.1943).

Reversed.

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

F. V. Investments, N. V. v. Sicma Corp., 415 So. 2d 755, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

415 So. 2d 755 (F. V. Investments, N. V. v. Sicma Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

E-Racer Tech, LLC v. Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs
198 So. 3d 1107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Swensen v. Lofton
457 So. 2d 1069 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Florida Crime Prevention Commission v. Cafiero
7 Fla. Supp. 2d 84 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1984)