CONSOLIDATED PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE, INC. AND F. BROWNE GREGG, APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, 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.
The court held that the temporary injunction was improperly granted with respect to the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 88-3, as it was not an issue raised by the County.
Appellants were enjoined from operating a concrete batch plant until permit requirements were met. The injunction referenced Volusia County's Land Dev…
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 Land Development Code cases and more on FLexlaw
[*542] COBB, Judge.
The appellants, Consolidated Pre-Stressed Concrete, Inc. and F. Browne Gregg, appeal from the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction which enjoined them from operating their concrete batch plant until they fulfilled all the necessary permit requirements set forth by Volusia County. Specifically, the trial court referred to the requirements of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 88-3 and Volusia County Zoning Ordinance No. 80-8.
After careful review of the record, we reverse the temporary injunction to the extent that it refers to th'e Volusia County Land Development Code, Ordinance Number 88-3, as amended. As conceded by Volusia County, their motion for temporary injunction only asked the court to enjoin Consolidated from operating in violation of the “Zoning Ordinance.” In addition, both the variance and special exception mentioned in the County’s motion dealt with compliance in regard to a 300 foot setback only. Finally, there were no allegations pertaining to Ordinance No. 88-3 within the County’s counterclaim.
The County suggests that permits under the Land Development Code were mentioned several times during the hearing. The problem with the County’s position is that, at least in this action giving rise to the temporary injunction, compliance with Ordinance No. 88-3 was clearly never an issue.
Accordingly, the non-final order of temporary injunction is reversed as to references to the Volusia County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 88-3, as amended. The order is affirmed in all other respects.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
HARRIS, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williford v. Melbourne Commercial Dev., Inc., 682 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…sue is resolved. The injunction clearly exceeded the scope of relief the Appellee sought in its motion for temporary injunction and as argued at the hearing thereon. This was error. See Consolidated Pre-Stressed Concrete, Inc. v. County of Volusia, 633 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (reversing portion of temporary injunction which exceeded relief requested in the motion). Not only was the relief not requested in the motion, it was made clear at the hearing that Appellee only wished to prevent Appellants from…