Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford

775 So. 2d 380, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15194, 2000 WL 1726872

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-2319

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 775 So. 2d 380 (Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford) 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

Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford, 775 So. 2d 380, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15194, 2000 WL 1726872 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After the reconsideration required by our opinion in Uro-Care v. Montford, 767 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the trial judge again denied Uro-Care’s application for a temporary injunction enforcing the terms of a non-competitive agreement with Dr. Montford. On this second appeal, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying temporary injunctive relief under the pertinent standards. Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So.2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc., 687 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Harrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Cajun & Grill of America, Inc. v. Jet Int’l Cuisine, Inc., 646 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); 3299 N. Fed. Highway, Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Broward County, 646 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review dismissed, 699 So.2d 690 (Fla.1997); Florida High School Activities Association, Inc. v. Adderly, 574 So.2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Langford v. Rotech Oxygen & Medical Equip., Inc., 541 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

After the reconsideration required by our opinion in Uro-Care v. Montford, 767 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the trial judge again denied Uro-Care’s application for a temporary injunction enforcing the terms of a non-competitive agreement with Dr. Montford. On this second appeal, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying temporary injunctive relief under the pertinent standards. Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So.2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc., 687 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Harrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Cajun & Grill of America, Inc. v. Jet Int’l Cuisine, Inc., 646 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); 3299 N. Fed. Highway, Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Broward County, 646 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review dismissed, 699 So.2d 690 (Fla.1997); Florida High School Activities Association, Inc. v. Adderly, 574 So.2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Langford v. Rotech Oxygen & Medical Equip., Inc., 541 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 So. 2d 380, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15194, 2000 WL 1726872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uro-care-pa-v-montford-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack