Fayad v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fayad v. Mercy Hospital, Inc.

773 So. 2d 1244, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16220, 2000 WL 1816691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-1629

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 1244 (Fayad v. Mercy Hospital, 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

Fayad v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 773 So. 2d 1244, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16220, 2000 WL 1816691 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellant failed to establish the elements necessary for the entry of a temporary injunction, South Fla. Limousines, Inc. v. Broward County Aviation Dept., 512 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(“In order for a temporary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) he has no adequate remedy at law; (3) he has a clear legal right to the relief requested; and (4) a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.”), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant’s motion for temporary injunction. See Perry & Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellant failed to establish the elements necessary for the entry of a temporary injunction, South Fla. Limousines, Inc. v. Broward County Aviation Dept., 512 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(“In order for a temporary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) he has no adequate remedy at law; (3) he has a clear legal right to the relief requested; and (4) a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.”), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant’s motion for temporary injunction. See Perry & Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1244, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16220, 2000 WL 1816691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fayad-v-mercy-hospital-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack