Michael v. Golden Dolphin Enterprises, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael v. Golden Dolphin Enterprises, Inc.

561 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 1990 WL 64149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2646

StatusPublished

This text of 561 So. 2d 29 (Michael v. Golden Dolphin Enterprises, 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

Michael v. Golden Dolphin Enterprises, Inc., 561 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 1990 WL 64149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order holding appellant in contempt. According to the Agreed Statement of the Case the motion for contempt was based upon the allegation that appellant had violated the temporary injunction, by a specific act prohibited by the injunction order in which he was a named party. The trial court’s order finds that appellant, an individual, violated the injunction. While appellant contends that he cannot be found individually liable for the acts of his corporation, which was also named in the contempt citation, we can only interpret the facts and the judgment as finding that he personally committed the act warranting the order of contempt.

LETTS, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order holding appellant in contempt. According to the Agreed Statement of the Case the motion for contempt was based upon the allegation that appellant had violated the temporary injunction, by a specific act prohibited by the injunction order in which he was a named party. The trial court’s order finds that appellant, an individual, violated the injunction. While appellant contends that he cannot be found individually liable for the acts of his corporation, which was also named in the contempt citation, we can only interpret the facts and the judgment as finding that he personally committed the act warranting the order of contempt.

LETTS, WALDEN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 So. 2d 29, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3302, 1990 WL 64149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-v-golden-dolphin-enterprises-inc-fladistctapp-1990.