GUIMARAES v. Phelan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

GUIMARAES v. Phelan

34 So. 3d 97, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4514, 2010 WL 1329138

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 2010

Docket3D09-2746

StatusPublished

This text of 34 So. 3d 97 (GUIMARAES v. Phelan) 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

GUIMARAES v. Phelan, 34 So. 3d 97, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4514, 2010 WL 1329138 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Almyr Guimaraes appeals the non-final order denying his motion to dismiss and motion for injunctive relief. Because the denial of Guimaraes’ motion to dismiss is a non-final, non-appealable order, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.130(a)(3). As to the remainder of the order which denies Guimaraes’ request for injunctive relief, we affirm as Guimaraes’ has failed to establish that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. See Cohen Fin., LP v. KMC/EC II, LLC, 967 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a request for a temporary injunction, we must affirm unless the appellant establishes that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion.”); Golden Shores Props., LLC. v. Santopietro, 792 So.2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Almyr Guimaraes appeals the non-final order denying his motion to dismiss and motion for injunctive relief. Because the denial of Guimaraes’ motion to dismiss is a non-final, non-appealable order, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.130(a)(3). As to the remainder of the order which denies Guimaraes’ request for injunctive relief, we affirm as Guimaraes’ has failed to establish that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion. See Cohen Fin., LP v. KMC/EC II, LLC, 967 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a request for a temporary injunction, we must affirm unless the appellant establishes that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion.”); Golden Shores Props., LLC. v. Santopietro, 792 So.2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 97, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4514, 2010 WL 1329138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guimaraes-v-phelan-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack