U.S. MANUFACTURING AND GALVANIZING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. RENFROW, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
USMGC appealed the denial of dissolution of a temporary injunction that closed its facility and required removal of hazardous waste. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the injunction despite evidence of hazardous waste removal, as further testing was needed.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying dissolution. USMGC could not challenge the injunction's overbreadth because it had agreed to its terms, and the evidence of changed circumstances was insufficient because further testing was required to confirm contaminant removal.
[1] A party that agrees to the terms of a temporary injunction cannot later complain on appeal that the injunction was overbroad.
[2] Courts retain jurisdiction to modify or dissolve injunctions when changed circumstances make it equitable.
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“Because injunctive matters are open-ended in nature, courts necessarily retain jurisdiction to modify, alter or dissolve the injunction whenever changed circumstances make it equitable.”
Establishes the general principle that courts can modify or dissolve injunctions based on changed circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDERM sued USMGC for environmental violations under Metro Dade County ordinance. The parties agreed to a temporary injunction closing USMGC's facility …
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 Overbroad Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, U.S. Manufacturing and Galvanizing Corporation (USMGC), appeals a non-final order denying dissolution of a temporary injunction. We affirm.
Appellee, Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), sued USMGC for injunctive and other relief aris ing out of alleged violations of Metro Dade County’s environmental protection ordinance. USMGC and DERM agreed to a temporary injunction closing down USMGC’s facility, and requiring the removal of hazardous waste.
Approximately a year later, USMGC sought dissolution of the temporary injunction based upon a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied USMGC’s request.
USMGC contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying dissolution of the temporary injunction because: 1) the temporary injunction was overbroad; and 2) the evidence established a substantial change in circumstances because the hazardous waste had been removed. Appellee asserts that: 1) USMGC agreed to the temporary injunction and therefore cannot now complain of its overbreadth; and 2) USMGC failed to meet its burden of proof to dissolve the temporary injunction and hence, the trial court. did not abuse its discretion.
Here, USMGC and DERM agreed to the entry and the terms of the temporary injunction. Since USMCG agreed to the temporary injunction, USMGC cannot complain, on appeal, of its overbreadth. See Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971); Hudgins v. Florida Federal Savings and Loan Association, 399 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Because injunctive matters are open-ended in nature, courts necessarily retain jurisdiction to modify, alter or dissolve the injunction whenever changed circumstances make it equitable. Hale v. Miracle Enterprises Corporation, 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). However, an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in dissolving an injunction where no abuse of discretion appears. Alachua County v. Lewis Oil Company Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Cunningham v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Executive Uniform Rental, Inc. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co. of Florida, 265 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA) cert. denied, 270 So. 2d 742 (Fla.1972).
In this ease, the trial court heard evidence and denied the dissolution of the temporary injunction. Although USMGC developed some evidence of a substantial change in circumstances, testimony from their expert also indicated that further site tests were needed to determine whether contaminants were still present.
Where facts and circumstances have changed to the point that a temporary injunction is no longer needed, and, where equity dictates, the injunction should be dissolved. Reynolds v. The Surf Club, 473 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) review denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986). However, where the trial court determines that the temporary injunction should remain in effect to accomplish the initial goals of the injunctive relief, we should not disturb its ruling, absent an abuse of discretion. See Hale v. Miracle Enterprises Corporation, 517 So. 2d at 103.
We recognize that the term “temporary injunction” envisions that the injunctive relief does not contemplate “forever.” However, we also recognize that injunctive relief in environmental matters, especially when it protects the public from hazardous waste, does not require that a temporary injunction be dissolved with great “velocity.” Rather, prudence dictates that a careful judicial course would accomplish the goals of such sensitive injunctive relief.
The trial court acted well within its judicial demense and did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conway Brock, Jr. v. Newman D. Brock, 667 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Trial courts necessarily retain jurisdiction to modify, alter, or dissolve an injunction when changed circumstances make it equitable to do so. U.S. Manufacturing & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). One seeking to dissolve a temporary injunction must make it appear that the [*312] injunction is without basis in the pleadings and evidence, or is illegal in its nature. World Security Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511, 512…
-
Sylvio Tabet v. Tabet, 644 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…d 617, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Considering the facts of this ease, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the elements necessary to grant the temporary injunction were present. See U.S. Mfg. and Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); 1800 Atl. Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. 1800 Atl. Developers, 569 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Oxford Int’l Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. di…
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 750 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…in October 1998, was not appealed, and, in fact, was either invited or acquiesced to by defendants. Finally, the record does not reflect a change in circumstances to justify granting defendants’ motion. See U.S. Mfg. & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the order under review does not violate defendants’ First Amendment rights. As recognized by Rodriguez, limitations imposed by the court between the media and lawyers and/or litigants are…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. The Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1971)
- Morton v. State, 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Cunningham v. Hester Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Hudgins v. Fla. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 399 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Alachua Cnty. v. Lewis OIL Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Mrs. John M. Reynolds v. THE Surf Club, 473 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Gawronski v. State, 265 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)