Matrix Systems, Inc. v. Odebrecht Contractors of Florida, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matrix Systems, Inc. v. Odebrecht Contractors of Florida, Inc.

753 So. 2d 652, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 753 So. 2d 652 (Matrix Systems, Inc. v. Odebrecht Contractors of Florida, 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

Matrix Systems, Inc. v. Odebrecht Contractors of Florida, Inc., 753 So. 2d 652, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Matrix Systems, Inc. appeals from an order entering a permanent injunction compelling performance of a purchase order. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and hold that the injunction was wrongfully entered.

At the hearing on the contractor’s complaint for entry of a mandatory permanent injunction, over Matrix counsel’s repeated objections, the trial court refused to allow the taking of sworn testimony and permitted only proffers from counsel. “In the absence of a clear stipulation of counsel, argument of counsel alone does not constitute evidence from which the trial court can determine the propriety, vel non, of granting injunctive relief.” Brand v. Elliott, 610 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This maxim holds particularly true in this case, where the allegations were intensely fact-specific and related to complex engineering, construction, and computer software issues.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Matrix Systems, Inc. appeals from an order entering a permanent injunction compelling performance of a purchase order. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and hold that the injunction was wrongfully entered.

At the hearing on the contractor’s complaint for entry of a mandatory permanent injunction, over Matrix counsel’s repeated objections, the trial court refused to allow the taking of sworn testimony and permitted only proffers from counsel. “In the absence of a clear stipulation of counsel, argument of counsel alone does not constitute evidence from which the trial court can determine the propriety, vel non, of granting injunctive relief.” Brand v. Elliott, 610 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This maxim holds particularly true in this case, where the allegations were intensely fact-specific and related to complex engineering, construction, and computer software issues.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 So. 2d 652, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matrix-systems-inc-v-odebrecht-contractors-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack