Hollender v. S. R. F., Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollender v. S. R. F., Inc.

321 So. 2d 627, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15581

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 31, 1975

DocketNo. 75-205

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 321 So. 2d 627 (Hollender v. S. R. F., 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

Hollender v. S. R. F., Inc., 321 So. 2d 627, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15581 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

By interlocutory appeal, appellant seeks review of a temporary injunction enjoining her from engaging in employment competitive with plaintiff/appellee, her former employer, with whom she had executed a non-compete agreement.

Appellant urges that the point on appeal is whether the court should enforce the agreement by a temporary injunction where the evidence before the court at the hearing on the application for temporary injunction showed no consideration for the execution of the restrictive agreement. It is apparent that the trial court has made no determination as to the validity of the agreement. Thus, we cannot say from this record that the court abused its discretion in entering the temporary restraining order [628]*628pending a final determination of this cause, the outcome of which apparently will turn upon the validity of the agreement.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, J., and NESBITT, JOSEPH, Associate Judge, concur.

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

OWEN, Judge.

By interlocutory appeal, appellant seeks review of a temporary injunction enjoining her from engaging in employment competitive with plaintiff/appellee, her former employer, with whom she had executed a non-compete agreement.

Appellant urges that the point on appeal is whether the court should enforce the agreement by a temporary injunction where the evidence before the court at the hearing on the application for temporary injunction showed no consideration for the execution of the restrictive agreement. It is apparent that the trial court has made no determination as to the validity of the agreement. Thus, we cannot say from this record that the court abused its discretion in entering the temporary restraining order [628]*628pending a final determination of this cause, the outcome of which apparently will turn upon the validity of the agreement.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, J., and NESBITT, JOSEPH, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 So. 2d 627, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollender-v-s-r-f-inc-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack