Frengut v. Zgoplus.Com, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frengut v. Zgoplus.Com, Inc.

778 So. 2d 432, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1062, 2001 WL 99185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-3331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 432 (Frengut v. Zgoplus.Com, 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

Frengut v. Zgoplus.Com, Inc., 778 So. 2d 432, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1062, 2001 WL 99185 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). In this appeal from a temporary injunction, appellant argues that the issuance of the injunction was error because the appellee failed to take evidence at the hearing and relied solely on the facts alleged in its verified complaint. Appellee concedes that no witnesses were offered, but argues that appellant never objected to the failure to call live witnesses and offered its own affidavits in opposition to the verified complaint. While deciding whether to grant a temporary injunction solely on the basis of a verified complaint at a noticed hearing would be error if preserved, see Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank, 766 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), without a transcript we cannot determine the extent to which appellant agreed to the procedure, given its own reliance on affidavits alone to contest the entry of the injunction.

WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). In this appeal from a temporary injunction, appellant argues that the issuance of the injunction was error because the appellee failed to take evidence at the hearing and relied solely on the facts alleged in its verified complaint. Appellee concedes that no witnesses were offered, but argues that appellant never objected to the failure to call live witnesses and offered its own affidavits in opposition to the verified complaint. While deciding whether to grant a temporary injunction solely on the basis of a verified complaint at a noticed hearing would be error if preserved, see Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank, 766 So.2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), without a transcript we cannot determine the extent to which appellant agreed to the procedure, given its own reliance on affidavits alone to contest the entry of the injunction.

WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 432, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1062, 2001 WL 99185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frengut-v-zgopluscom-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack