Johanson v. Insua

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johanson v. Insua

161 So. 2d 247, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1964

DocketNo. 63-859

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 So. 2d 247 (Johanson v. Insua) 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

Johanson v. Insua, 161 So. 2d 247, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from two orders in chancery by which the appellants were required to increase a temporary .injunction bond from $12,000 to $20,000.

We have read the briefs of the respective parties and have examined the record brought before the court, but are unable to determine the issues which the appellants propose, namely, the alleged error. of the court in increasing the injunction bond, denying a petition for rehearing of such order, and in dissolving the temporary injunction.¹ The appellants have failed to bring before us sufficient portions of the record that would enable us to determine whether or not the orders of which they complain were erroneous or an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion.

On the basis of the record before us, the appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error or that the chancellor exceeded his authority or abused his discretion, absent which the orders should be and are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from two orders in chancery by which the appellants were required to increase a temporary .injunction bond from $12,000 to $20,000.

We have read the briefs of the respective parties and have examined the record brought before the court, but are unable to determine the issues which the appellants propose, namely, the alleged error. of the court in increasing the injunction bond, denying a petition for rehearing of such order, and in dissolving the temporary injunction.¹ The appellants have failed to bring before us sufficient portions of the record that would enable us to determine whether or not the orders of which they complain were erroneous or an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion.

On the basis of the record before us, the appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error or that the chancellor exceeded his authority or abused his discretion, absent which the orders should be and are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 2d 247, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johanson-v-insua-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack