Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc.

320 So. 2d 30, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 7, 1975·No. No. 75-619·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Abe Schonfeld and Answer-Phone of Hollywood, Inc., have petitioned this court [31]*31for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion for a mandatory injunction pendente lite. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the remedy of an interlocutory appeal was available and the certiorari should be denied under the rule as stated in Eristavi-Tchitcherine v. Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1944, 154 Fla. 100, 16 So.2d 730, at 735.

Thereupon, in proceeding to consider the merits of the cause, and now in treating the petition as an interlocutory appeal, we hold that no reversible error is shown. See Hines v. Dozer, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 548.

Affirmed.

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

Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc., 320 So. 2d 30, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

320 So. 2d 30 (Schonfeld v. Barrich Telephone Answering Service, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cady v. Laws
341 So. 2d 1022 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)