Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C.

698 So. 2d 941, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10573, 1997 WL 577590

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 17, 1997·No. No. 96-3739·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Of appellant’s arguments, the only one with merit is that the contempt order may not stand since the September 17, 1996 temporary injunction fails to identify the clinical study and its supporting documentation with adequate specificity to support a contempt order. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hettinger v. McMahon, 164 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The trial court was authorized to require production of the documents by November 5, 1996. We strike only that portion of the October 23, 1996 order finding appellants in contempt.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Of appellant’s arguments, the only one with merit is that the contempt order may not stand since the September 17, 1996 temporary injunction fails to identify the clinical study and its supporting documentation with adequate specificity to support a contempt order. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hettinger v. McMahon, 164 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The trial court was authorized to require production of the documents by November 5, 1996. We strike only that portion of the October 23, 1996 order finding appellants in contempt.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C., 698 So. 2d 941, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10573, 1997 WL 577590 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

698 So. 2d 941 (Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related