U.S. Block Corp. v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

U.S. Block Corp. v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co.

532 So. 2d 46, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2233, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4268, 1988 WL 98591

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 1988

DocketNo. 87-3088

StatusPublished

This text of 532 So. 2d 46 (U.S. Block Corp. v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co.) 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

U.S. Block Corp. v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 532 So. 2d 46, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2233, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4268, 1988 WL 98591 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of temporary injunction issued by the trial court because we find a lack of support in the record for the trial court’s conclusion that the appel-lee lacked any other remedy and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. See Northside Motors v. Brinkley, 282 So.2d 617, 624 (Fla.1973); and C.I.T. Corporation v. Reeves, 112 Fla. 424, 150 So. 638 (1933). The conclusion as to irreparable harm is further undermined by the trial court’s order that the injunction would be stayed if appellants posted a monetary bond. In addition, the court declined to consider the issue of whether the appel-lee had a clear right of possession to the property in question, a prerequisite to the grant of injunctive relief. See Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federation, Inc., 498 So.2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of temporary injunction issued by the trial court because we find a lack of support in the record for the trial court’s conclusion that the appel-lee lacked any other remedy and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. See Northside Motors v. Brinkley, 282 So.2d 617, 624 (Fla.1973); and C.I.T. Corporation v. Reeves, 112 Fla. 424, 150 So. 638 (1933). The conclusion as to irreparable harm is further undermined by the trial court’s order that the injunction would be stayed if appellants posted a monetary bond. In addition, the court declined to consider the issue of whether the appel-lee had a clear right of possession to the property in question, a prerequisite to the grant of injunctive relief. See Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federation, Inc., 498 So.2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 So. 2d 46, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2233, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4268, 1988 WL 98591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-block-corp-v-usb-acquisition-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack