Prager v. A-Freedom Bail Bonds, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prager v. A-Freedom Bail Bonds, Inc.

735 So. 2d 586, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8499, 1999 WL 420456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3252

StatusPublished

This text of 735 So. 2d 586 (Prager v. A-Freedom Bail Bonds, 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

Prager v. A-Freedom Bail Bonds, Inc., 735 So. 2d 586, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8499, 1999 WL 420456 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to dissolve the temporary and permanent injunction, because the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s findings that appellee showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement action. We also affirm on the basis that appellee proved the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm to be entitled to an injunction.

While we agree with appellants that the amount of the injunction bond ($1,000) is insufficient to cover damages, we note that appellants failed to request modification of the bond amount below, and merely asserted their right to attorney’s fees in excess of the bond if the motion to dissolve was granted. We therefore affirm without prejudice to appellants’ filing a motion to modify the injunction as to the amount of bond.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to dissolve the temporary and permanent injunction, because the record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s findings that appellee showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement action. We also affirm on the basis that appellee proved the requisite likelihood of irreparable harm to be entitled to an injunction.

While we agree with appellants that the amount of the injunction bond ($1,000) is insufficient to cover damages, we note that appellants failed to request modification of the bond amount below, and merely asserted their right to attorney’s fees in excess of the bond if the motion to dissolve was granted. We therefore affirm without prejudice to appellants’ filing a motion to modify the injunction as to the amount of bond.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 586, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8499, 1999 WL 420456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prager-v-a-freedom-bail-bonds-inc-fladistctapp-1999.