Stirling Music Co. v. Feilbach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stirling Music Co. v. Feilbach

100 So. 2d 75

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1958

DocketNo. 57-434

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 100 So. 2d 75 (Stirling Music Co. v. Feilbach) 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

Stirling Music Co. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order of the lower court denying a temporary injunction.

The appellant is in the business of renting and servicing coin-operated machines such as juke boxes, pinball machines, etc. The nature of the temporary relief sought was to enjoin the appellees from certain allegedly unfair trade practices which have resulted in the loss of customers of the appellant. It is the appellant’s contention that a temporary injunction should have been granted and that the denial of same constituted an abuse of discretion by the lower court.

The granting or denying of the temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless a clear showing has been made that there was an abuse. The nature of a temporary injunction is such that it is granted sparingly and cautiously, taking into consideration the beneficial results on one hand and the probable detriment on the other. See Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214, 193 So. 548; Clark v. Kreidt, 145 Fla. 1, 199 So. 333. Undoubtedly the chancellor below considered these elements in arriving at his conclusion to deny temporary injunctive relief. No showing has been made, except his denial, of the abuse of discretion by the lower court and it follows that the order appealed should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J„ and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order of the lower court denying a temporary injunction.

The appellant is in the business of renting and servicing coin-operated machines such as juke boxes, pinball machines, etc. The nature of the temporary relief sought was to enjoin the appellees from certain allegedly unfair trade practices which have resulted in the loss of customers of the appellant. It is the appellant’s contention that a temporary injunction should have been granted and that the denial of same constituted an abuse of discretion by the lower court.

The granting or denying of the temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless a clear showing has been made that there was an abuse. The nature of a temporary injunction is such that it is granted sparingly and cautiously, taking into consideration the beneficial results on one hand and the probable detriment on the other. See Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214, 193 So. 548; Clark v. Kreidt, 145 Fla. 1, 199 So. 333. Undoubtedly the chancellor below considered these elements in arriving at his conclusion to deny temporary injunctive relief. No showing has been made, except his denial, of the abuse of discretion by the lower court and it follows that the order appealed should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J„ and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 2d 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stirling-music-co-v-feilbach-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack