Weintraub v. Mason

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weintraub v. Mason

165 So. 2d 188, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1964

DocketNo. 64-249

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 2d 188 (Weintraub v. Mason) 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

Weintraub v. Mason, 165 So. 2d 188, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

CARROLL, Judge.

Proceeding under Ch. 322, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., the Florida Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint for injunction against the appellant, who is in the business of leasing tractors and trailers, charging he was operating as a carrier without license contrary to the statute.

This appeal is from an interlocutory injunction which was granted after notice and hearing. The pertinent issue there was whether appellant furnished drivers. His filed affidavit stated that he did not. The evidence submitted by plaintiffs consisted of hearsay and of legal conclusions stated by an investigator. No useful purpose would be served by quoting his testimony here. We have examined it, and we must agree with the contention advanced by the appellant that there was no adequate or substantial evidentiary support for the preliminary injunction. Therefore the order appealed from should be and hereby is reversed.

Reversed.

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

CARROLL, Judge.

Proceeding under Ch. 322, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., the Florida Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint for injunction against the appellant, who is in the business of leasing tractors and trailers, charging he was operating as a carrier without license contrary to the statute.

This appeal is from an interlocutory injunction which was granted after notice and hearing. The pertinent issue there was whether appellant furnished drivers. His filed affidavit stated that he did not. The evidence submitted by plaintiffs consisted of hearsay and of legal conclusions stated by an investigator. No useful purpose would be served by quoting his testimony here. We have examined it, and we must agree with the contention advanced by the appellant that there was no adequate or substantial evidentiary support for the preliminary injunction. Therefore the order appealed from should be and hereby is reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 2d 188, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weintraub-v-mason-fladistctapp-1964.