Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. v. Emerald Waste Services, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. v. Emerald Waste Services, LLC

17 So. 3d 916, 2009 WL 3109942, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 30, 2009

DocketNo. 1D09-1971

StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 3d 916 (Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. v. Emerald Waste Services, LLC) 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

Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. v. Emerald Waste Services, LLC, 17 So. 3d 916, 2009 WL 3109942, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction because of a lack of specific factual findings. Aerospace Welding, Inc. v. Southstream Exhaust & Welding, Inc., 824 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reiterating that “ ‘[cjlear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings’ must support each of [the] four criteria before the court may enter the injunction.”) (quoting City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). We find the order did no more than “mirror each tine of the four-prong [temporary injunction] test.” Edwards v. Harris, 964 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Seashore Club of Atl. City, Inc. v. Tessler, 405 So.2d 767, 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).

Given the circumstantial nature of the evidence supporting the breadth of the injunction, specific factual findings are necessary to allow for meaningful appellate review. Jouvence Ctr. for Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC, 14 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to [917]*917enter an order that satisfies all requirements for entry of a temporary injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction because of a lack of specific factual findings. Aerospace Welding, Inc. v. Southstream Exhaust & Welding, Inc., 824 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reiterating that “ ‘[cjlear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings’ must support each of [the] four criteria before the court may enter the injunction.”) (quoting City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). We find the order did no more than “mirror each tine of the four-prong [temporary injunction] test.” Edwards v. Harris, 964 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Seashore Club of Atl. City, Inc. v. Tessler, 405 So.2d 767, 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).

Given the circumstantial nature of the evidence supporting the breadth of the injunction, specific factual findings are necessary to allow for meaningful appellate review. Jouvence Ctr. for Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC, 14 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to [917]*917enter an order that satisfies all requirements for entry of a temporary injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 So. 3d 916, 2009 WL 3109942, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waste-pro-of-florida-inc-v-emerald-waste-services-llc-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack