ROBUSTIANO PUGA AND MEDMOLDS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competitive agreement under Florida Statutes § 542.12(2), finding the defendants failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion and that irreparable injury was adequately shown.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction to enforce a non-competitive agreement when the covenant is being directly violated and the breach cannot be adequately compensated by money damages.
[1] A non-competitive agreement validated under Florida Statutes § 542.12(2) may be enforced by temporary injunction when the covenant is directly violated and the breach can…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“from the nature of the act or the circumstances [the breach] cannot be readily, adequately, and completely compensated for with money”
Standard for establishing irreparable injury to justify an injunction
Defendants-appellants violated a non-competitive agreement that was validated under Florida law, and the trial court granted a temporary injunction to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The defendants-appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction enforcing, pendente lite, a so-called “non-competitive” agreement validated by Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1975).
Northwestern National Ins. Co. v. Green-spun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Contrary to their contentions on appeal, the showing in the record that the covenant in question was being directly violated and that “from the nature of the act or the circumstances [the breach] cannot be readily, adequately, and completely compensated for with money, . . .”17 Fla.Jur. Injunctions § 22 (1958) is itself sufficient to support the finding of irreparable injury which was made by the trial judge and which is necessary to justify such an order. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1974); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1966), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966); West Shore Restaurant Corp. v. Turk, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1968); see Uni-Chem Corp. of Florida, Inc. v. Maret, 338 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Accordingly, the order under review is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmold, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…1981), and cases cited. For these reasons, the panel order of dismissal is vacated and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.16 Motion to dismiss denied. . Two other defendants were originally also involved. . See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . The only jurisdictional aspects of the notice appear to be timeliness and filing in the lower tribunal. Lampkin-Asam v. District Court of Appeal, 364 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1978). . It plainly makes no difference that the orders in…
-
AIR Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Milan Floribus, 511 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…y “whether great or small,” Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 834, 243 P. 2d 497, 503 (1952), which is not “reparable”, that is able to be adequately repaired or redressed in a court of law by an award of money damages. See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 17 Fla. Jur.2d Injunctions § 22 (1981). In the present area of noncompete agreements, which are validated by Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981), our supreme court has applied that aspect of the “irreparable injury” rule unde…
-
SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…whether great or small,' Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 834, 243 P. 2d 497, 503 (1952), which is not `repara.. ble,' that is able to be adequately repaired or redressed in a court of law by an award of money damages. See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); 17 Fla.Jur.2d Injunctions § 22 (1981). In the present area of noncompete agreements, which are validated by Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981), our supreme court has applied that aspect of the `irreparable injury' rule under…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reuben Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. OF Fla., Inc., 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1966)
- Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)
- W. Shore Rest. Corp. v. Turk, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1958)
- The City OF Miami v. Hamilton, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1957)
- Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., Inc., 385 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1966)
- Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Uni-Chem Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Maret, 338 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Davis v. Goodwin, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)