Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott

584 So. 2d 1035, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7550, 1991 WL 134863

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1534

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 584 So. 2d 1035 (Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott) 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

Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A. v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7550, 1991 WL 134863 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a temporary injunction. We quash the injunction because it was entered without proper verified pleadings or sworn evidentiary support. Additionally, the trial judge failed to make sufficient factual determinations to support the injunction. See e.g., City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); United Steelworkers of America v. Seminole Asphalt Refining, Inc., 269 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

The order is quashed and this cause remanded. Should appellee submit a new, proper petition for injunctive relief the court can entertain and grant it, if it deems it appropriate.

ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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