Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park

422 So. 2d 6, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1671

StatusPublished

This text of 422 So. 2d 6 (Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park) 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

Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 422 So. 2d 6, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have been asked to review the trial court’s order which denied appellant’s motion for temporary injunction without a hearing. This is the second time we have considered an order denying a motion by appellant for temporary injunction. In Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we affirmed the denial of appellant’s earlier motion. In that opinion we recited the issues appellant raised in its pleadings, which we need not repeat here. Subsequent to our opinion, appellant deposed the mayor of Oakland Park. His testimony is quoted in BMZ Corp. v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Based on that testimony, appellant amended its complaint by adding a count alleging the invalidity of Ordinance 0-79-29 because of a violation of the sunshine law. It then filed the motion for temporary injunction which occasioned the order now being appealed. The only substantive difference between appellant’s present motion and the previous one was the new allegation of the sunshine law violation. The trial court reviewed the present motion and properly found it warranted neither a hearing nor relief, apparently concluding as we did in BMZ Corp. v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), that the inadequate, sketchy dialogue in the mayor’s deposition did not show a sunshine law .violation.¹

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have been asked to review the trial court’s order which denied appellant’s motion for temporary injunction without a hearing. This is the second time we have considered an order denying a motion by appellant for temporary injunction. In Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we affirmed the denial of appellant’s earlier motion. In that opinion we recited the issues appellant raised in its pleadings, which we need not repeat here. Subsequent to our opinion, appellant deposed the mayor of Oakland Park. His testimony is quoted in BMZ Corp. v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Based on that testimony, appellant amended its complaint by adding a count alleging the invalidity of Ordinance 0-79-29 because of a violation of the sunshine law. It then filed the motion for temporary injunction which occasioned the order now being appealed. The only substantive difference between appellant’s present motion and the previous one was the new allegation of the sunshine law violation. The trial court reviewed the present motion and properly found it warranted neither a hearing nor relief, apparently concluding as we did in BMZ Corp. v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), that the inadequate, sketchy dialogue in the mayor’s deposition did not show a sunshine law .violation.¹

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 6, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/playpen-south-inc-v-city-of-oakland-park-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack