Stone v. Gorlovezky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stone v. Gorlovezky

118 So. 3d 238, 2013 WL 3455752, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10985

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 2013

DocketNo. 3D12-3433

StatusPublished

This text of 118 So. 3d 238 (Stone v. Gorlovezky) 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

Stone v. Gorlovezky, 118 So. 3d 238, 2013 WL 3455752, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10985 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

David Stone and American Cellular & Communications Corporation, the defendants below, appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff below, Harry Gorlovezky. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the entry of the temporary injunction. See Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In considering a request for injunction, the trial court has wide discretion to either grant, deny, dissolve, or modify a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not intercede unless the aggrieved party clearly shows an abuse of discretion.”) However, we remand for determination of an appropriate bond. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b) (“No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.”); Vargas, 771 So.2d at 596 (noting that “the purpose of an injunction bond is to provide sufficient funds to cover the adverse party’s costs and damages if the injunction is wrongfully issued”).

Affirmed, remanded with instructions.

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

WELLS, Judge.

David Stone and American Cellular & Communications Corporation, the defendants below, appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff below, Harry Gorlovezky. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the entry of the temporary injunction. See Vargas v. Vargas, 771 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“In considering a request for injunction, the trial court has wide discretion to either grant, deny, dissolve, or modify a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not intercede unless the aggrieved party clearly shows an abuse of discretion.”) However, we remand for determination of an appropriate bond. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b) (“No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.”); Vargas, 771 So.2d at 596 (noting that “the purpose of an injunction bond is to provide sufficient funds to cover the adverse party’s costs and damages if the injunction is wrongfully issued”).

Affirmed, remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 3d 238, 2013 WL 3455752, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-gorlovezky-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack