McKinnon v. Pelt
182 So. 3d 924, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 591, 2016 WL 166775
Opinion
We affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion to dissolve the injunction, without prejudice to the appellant’s ability to file a subsequent motion asserting the requisite changed circumstances and seeking a hearing thereon. See Reyes v. Reyes, 104 So.3d 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So.3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Knight v. Waters, 786 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McKinnon v. Pelt, 182 So. 3d 924, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 591, 2016 WL 166775 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).
182 So. 3d 924 (McKinnon v. Pelt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alkhoury v. Alkhoury
54 So. 3d 641 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Reyes v. Reyes
104 So. 3d 1206 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Knight v. Waters
786 So. 2d 1289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)