MID-FLORIDA AT EUSTIS, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT,
v.
NOEL E. GRIFFIN, JR., 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.
Mid-Florida appeals from a temporary injunction requiring it to remove a fence and dirt barrier on its airport property and maintain aircraft access to Griffin's leased properties. The appellate court vacates the injunction, finding that Griffin failed to establish a clear legal right to court-ordered access to the airport property.
The temporary injunction is vacated because Griffin failed to allege any sufficient legal basis for seeking court-ordered access to the appellant's airport properties. A clear legal right to the relief requested is an essential requirement prior to issuance of a temporary injunction.
[1] A trial court must find a prima facie, clear legal right to relief before issuing a temporary injunction.
[2] A petition must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support a temporary injunction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Prior to issuing a temporary injunction, a trial court must be certain that the petition or other pleadings demonstrate a prima facie, clear legal right to the relief requested.”
Establishes the essential legal standard for temporary injunctions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMid-Florida constructed a fence and dirt barrier between its airport property and Griffin's leased properties, which were used by a parachute school a…
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 Clear Legal Right cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
Mid-Florida at Eustis, Inc. appeals from a temporary injunction entered against it on February 2, 1987. This court has jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(B) & 9.130(a)(3)(B). We quash the injunction.
The dispute in this case arose out of Mid-Florida’s construction of a fence and dirt barrier between its property, which was used as an airport, and Noel E. Griffin, Jr.’s properties, which were leased to two enterprises. These enterprises, a parachute school and an aircraft maintenance business, are dependent, in part, upon use of the airport property and access thereto. The trial court ruled that regardless of the merits of the case, the lessee businesses would suffer irreparable harm unless an injunction were granted to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, it mandated removal of the fence and barriers, and required that access for aircraft from Griffin’s properties to the airport be maintained.
Prior to issuing a temporary injunction, a trial court must be certain that the petition or other pleadings demonstrate a prima facie, clear legal right to the relief requested. See, e.g., Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1980).
It must appear that the petition has a substantial likelihood of success, on the merits. Heavener, Ogier Services, Inc. v. R.W. Florida Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Russell v. Florida Ranch Lands, Inc., 414 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The establishment of a clear legal right to the relief requested is an essential requirement prior to the issuance of a temporary injunction. Reinhold Construction, Inc. v. City Council for City of Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Heavener. We have reviewed the pleadings in this cause and conclude that appellee failed to allege any legal basis for seeking court ordered access to the appellant’s airport properties. Appellee pled only nuisance and access rights pursuant to a presumptive easement.
We find no legal basis to enforce access to appellant’s property based on a continual use permit or on the fact that the property is zoned for use as an airport. Nor is the finding of a prescriptive easement warranted, as appellee's tenants’ rights of access were based upon leases between the parties. See, Crigger v. Florida Power Corporation, 436 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings.
COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…relief requested is an essential requirement prior to the issuance of a temporary injunction. Reinhold Construction, Inc. v. City Council for City of Vero Beach, 429 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Heavener. Mid-Florida at Eustis, Inc. v. Griffin, 521 So. 2d 357 (1988). Not without force, the City argues that the trial court’s conclusion that it has “presented substantial facts and law in defense” precludes a temporary injunction.3 If it is to be subject to meaningful review, an order granting a temporary…
-
Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1995)…nch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1980). It must appear that the petition has a substantial likelihood of success, on the merits." Id. (quoting Mid-Florida, Inc. v. Griffin, 521 So. 2d 357, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)). The district court emphasized that, if this type of temporary injunction is "to be subject to meaningful review, an order granting a temporary injunction must contain more than conclusory legal aphorisms." Naegele, 634 So…
-
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cletus Cozart and Patricia Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…s completely appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Since a movant must establish a clear legal right to relief and a substantial likelihood of success before any temporary injunction is appropriate, Mid-Florida at Eustis, Inc. v. Griffin, 521 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), it is apparent that entitlement to a reduced bond requires an even stronger showing.4 Obviously, the consideration given to the mov-ant’s high probability of success must be very circumspect because the bond will be useful only…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Oxford Int'l Bank & Tr., Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Harris v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Crigger v. Fla. Power Corp., 436 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Russell v. Fla. Ranch Lands, Inc., 414 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)