Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc. v. Mayhugh

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc. v. Mayhugh

713 So. 2d 1124, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9576, 1998 WL 422522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1006

StatusPublished

This text of 713 So. 2d 1124 (Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc. v. Mayhugh) 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

Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc. v. Mayhugh, 713 So. 2d 1124, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9576, 1998 WL 422522 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc., appeals an order denying its claim for injunctive relief and addressing its claim for recovery of damages. As to damages, the trial court limited the scope and amount of damages “to the extent that the plaintiff suffered damages by having paid the defendant compensation while she was engaged in furthering her own business and by the defendant using the plaintiffs materials and equipment_” (Emphasis added).

We affirm the denial of the injunction, Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 (Fla.1994); Mittenzwei v. Industrial Waste Serv., Inc., 618 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); however, we reverse the limitation on damages. The record demonstrates that at the hearing for injunctive relief no testimony was presented as to any aspect of damages and the court erred in reaching this issue. We therefore reverse and remand this cause for further consideration of both the scope and the amount of damages, including compensatory damages if appropriate.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Sentry Moving & Storage Services, Inc., appeals an order denying its claim for injunctive relief and addressing its claim for recovery of damages. As to damages, the trial court limited the scope and amount of damages “to the extent that the plaintiff suffered damages by having paid the defendant compensation while she was engaged in furthering her own business and by the defendant using the plaintiffs materials and equipment_” (Emphasis added).

We affirm the denial of the injunction, Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 (Fla.1994); Mittenzwei v. Industrial Waste Serv., Inc., 618 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); however, we reverse the limitation on damages. The record demonstrates that at the hearing for injunctive relief no testimony was presented as to any aspect of damages and the court erred in reaching this issue. We therefore reverse and remand this cause for further consideration of both the scope and the amount of damages, including compensatory damages if appropriate.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 So. 2d 1124, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9576, 1998 WL 422522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sentry-moving-storage-services-inc-v-mayhugh-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack