M.G.K. PARTNERS, A FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY CAVALLO AND LINDA CAVALLO, HIS WIFE, AND STAGE DELI INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
M.G.K. Partners appeals the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction preventing it from leasing space in its shopping center to Domino's Pizza, based on a non-competition clause in the existing Stage Deli lease. The court affirmed, finding no clear abuse of discretion in the injunction decision.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. A trial court's ruling on a motion for injunction comes with a presumption of correctness and will be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion or clearly improper ruling, which the appellant failed to demonstrate.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion for injunction is presumed correct on appeal and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a clearly impro…
[2] A trial court's ruling on a motion to dissolve an injunction is presumed correct on appeal and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a cl…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court's ruling on a motion for injunction — and, logically, also a motion to dissolve an injunction — comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a clearly improper ruling.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to injunction decisions and the burden appellant must meet to obtain reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees operate an Italian restaurant and delicatessen in leased premises within a four-store strip shopping center owned by appellant. The original…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellees are the plaintiffs in an action for temporary and permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant, the object of the suit being to prevent violation of a non-competition clause in a lease. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction without notice, which was supported by affidavit.
Subsequently appellant filed a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, which was denied, as well as its answer. Appellant’s subsequent motion to reconsider was also denied. The trial court cited as authority Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985).
Appellees operate an Italian restaurant and delicatessen in leased premises in a four store strip shopping center owned by appellant. The lease involved in this action was originally made in June 1982 with a different landlord, but was transferred to appellant when the latter purchased the property. The lease provides that the lessee shall use the demised premises for the purpose of operating a deli with exclusive rights in the shopping center to retail beer and wine, but excludes use of the premises for a package liquor store or a wholesale beer distributorship. Another provision of the lease is that the lessor may have an additional restaurant lessee with a noncompetitive menu and with a seating capacity of nine. The premises leased to the appellees could seat a total of twelve.
The action arose when appellant sought to put a Domino’s Pizza in the four store strip center. While appellees did not have the equipment to dispense pizza when they executed the lease with appellant’s predecessor, they did seventeen months later, prior to appellant’s purchase of the center. We affirm. A trial court’s ruling on a motion for injunction — and, logically, also a motion to dissolve an injunction — comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, and will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a clearly improper ruling. Reinhold Construction, Inc. v. City Council for City of Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Appellant has failed to show either. DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gold Coast Chem. Corp. v. Goldberg, 668 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…a Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). A trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, reversible only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. M.G.K. Partners v. Cavallo, 515 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). A temporary injunction does not decide the merits of a ease; no full hearing has been conducted. To rule on a temporary injunction, the trial court must, early in the case, estimate the likelihood of the Plaintiff prevailin…
-
Benemerito & Flores, M.D.'S, P.A. v. Zeidy Roche, M.D., 751 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…erg, 668 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996): A trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, reversible only upon a showing of a dear abuse of discretion. M.G.K. Partners v. Cavallo, 515 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). A temporary injunction does not decide the merits of a case; no full hearing has been conducted. To rule on a temporary injunction, the trial court must, early in the case, estimate the likelihood of the Plaintiff prevailin…
-
Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…equity been established. Appellate review of an order issued upon an application for an injunction seeks ultimately to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying the request. E.g., M.G.K. Partners v. Cavallo, 515 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a temporary injunction will be reversed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion or a clearly improper ruling); South Fla. Limousines, Inc. v. Broward County Aviation Dep’t,…
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
- Reinhold Constr., Inc. v. City Council FOR the City OF Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Spurlock v. State, 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)