Steinberg v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steinberg v. Moore

108 So. 3d 1151, 2013 WL 1007306, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4201

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-2103

StatusPublished

This text of 108 So. 3d 1151 (Steinberg v. Moore) 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

Steinberg v. Moore, 108 So. 3d 1151, 2013 WL 1007306, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4201 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

We find no error reversible on appeal and affirm, except for one issue that will require correction or clarification below. The second of the two injunctions issued by the trial court is denominated a “permanent injunction.” The terms of the injunction, however, suggest that it is intended to be a temporary injunction, and appellees agree that the injunction is a temporary one. Rather than address this matter with the trial court below, however, appellants elected immediately to appeal. Appellees attempted to cure the problem by filing a motion to correct a scrivener’s error in the trial court, but they represent in their brief that they were unable to obtain the cooperation of the appellant to secure a hearing time before the trial judge prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. This matter does require correction or clarification by the trial court as to its intent. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction or clarification of order.

EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

We find no error reversible on appeal and affirm, except for one issue that will require correction or clarification below. The second of the two injunctions issued by the trial court is denominated a “permanent injunction.” The terms of the injunction, however, suggest that it is intended to be a temporary injunction, and appellees agree that the injunction is a temporary one. Rather than address this matter with the trial court below, however, appellants elected immediately to appeal. Appellees attempted to cure the problem by filing a motion to correct a scrivener’s error in the trial court, but they represent in their brief that they were unable to obtain the cooperation of the appellant to secure a hearing time before the trial judge prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. This matter does require correction or clarification by the trial court as to its intent. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction or clarification of order.

EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 3d 1151, 2013 WL 1007306, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-moore-fladistctapp-2013.