Puga v. Suave Shoe Corporation

374 So. 2d 552
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 31, 1979·No. 79-706, 79-734·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

374 So.2d 552 (1979)

Robustiano PUGA and Medmolds, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, Appellee.

Nos. 79-706, 79-734.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1979.
Rehearing Denied September 6, 1979.

Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein & Colan and Theodore Klein, Robinson & Greenberg and Barry N. Greenberg, Miami, for appellants.

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff and David L. Ross, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The defendants-appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction enforcing, pendente lite, a so-called "non-competitive" agreement validated by Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Northwestern National Ins. Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Contrary to their contentions on appeal, the showing in the record that the covenant in question was being directly violated and that "from the nature of the act or the circumstances [the breach] cannot be readily, adequately, and completely compensated for with money, ..." 17 Fla.Jur. Injunctions § 22 (1958) is itself sufficient to support the finding of irreparable injury which was made by the trial judge and which is necessary to justify such an order. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1974); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, 183 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1966), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966); West Shore Restaurant Corp. v. Turk, 101 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1958); see Uni-Chem Corp. of Florida, Inc. v. Maret, 338 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order under review is

Affirmed.

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

Puga v. Suave Shoe Corporation, 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

374 So. 2d 552 (Puga v. Suave Shoe Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sabina v. Dahlia Corp.
650 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Sun Elastic Corp. v. OB INDUSTRIES
603 So. 2d 516 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Miami Electronics Center, Inc. v. Saporta
597 So. 2d 903 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus
511 So. 2d 702 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky
463 So. 2d 349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Cash v. Surf Club
436 So. 2d 970 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp.
427 So. 2d 288 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Herndon v. Eli Witt Co.
420 So. 2d 920 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Summerlin v. Lamar Advertising of Pensacola, Inc.
419 So. 2d 781 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)