MULTICREDIT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; ROBERTO COBAR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, N.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
ECOBAN CAPITAL LIMITED, A CANADIAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND TRADE FINANCE CORPORATION, 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.
The dissenting opinion argues that a defendant's guilty plea to first-degree murder was valid, even though the defendant was not informed of the mandatory twenty-five-year parole restriction, because the defendant was aware of the direct consequences of the plea.
The dissenting justice would hold that a guilty plea is valid if the defendant is aware of the direct consequences of the plea, and that details of parole eligibility are collateral.
The defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant was not explicitly informed of the statute p…
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 Necessary Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm a mandatory temporary injunction requiring the appellant to cash and place the proceeds of letters of credit into the court registry.
We reject the claim that appellee failed to establish irreparable injury since seven days following entry of the injunction, the letters of credit would have expired on their own terms. We also reject the claim that Socie-dad Financiera Cash, S.A. was an indispensable party because under the circumstances Sociedad was at most a necessary party. We nonetheless agree with appellant that the trial court erred in not requiring the appellee, as successful movant for the injunction, to post a bond in accordance with the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b).
The decision in Parker Tampa Two, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1989), which the trial court did not have the benefit of at the time of the entry of the injunction, holds that damages for the improvident issuance of an injunction are limited to the amount of the injunction bond. For this reason, upon issuance of our mandate, the trial court is directed to require the movants to post a reasonable bond retroactive to the date of the entry of the temporary injunction.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dick v. Heyer, 567 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…lve the temporary injunction, we remand to the trial court to set a bond, retroactive to the date of entry of the temporary injunction, as required pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b). _ See MultiCredit, Inc. v. Ecoban Capital Ltd., 555 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. DOWNEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)