METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES K. O'BRIEN, AND RONDA O'BRIEN, HIS WIFE, 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 trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction to enforce county ordinances, as the government is presumed to suffer irreparable harm when seeking to enforce its police power.
The O'Briens operated a business in violation of county ordinances and without necessary permits. Despite repeated opportunities, they failed to secur…
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
PER curiam:.
Appellant, Metropolitan Dade County (County), appeals the trial court’s denial of a temporary injunction against appellees, James and Ronda O’Brien (the O’Briens). We reverse and remand with directions.
The O’Briens established a business without complying with various county ordinances or securing necessary permits. The County sued the O’Briens, requesting a preliminary injunction. Although the trial court found the O’Briens were violating several ordinances, it denied the County’s request and gave the O’Briens time to secure a variance. The trial court allowed the County to again seek a temporary injunction in ninety days. It did.
Because the O’Briens failed to secure a variance, the trial court again declined to issue an injunction. The trial court stated it would entertain the County’s motion, for the third time, in sixty days. The County appeals both denials of a temporary injunction.
Where the government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police power, any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irreparable harm is presumed. Rich v. Ryals, 212 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1968); Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation v. Kaszyk, 590 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Harvey v. Wittenberg, 384 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Here, the O’Briens began a business without complying with the county code, were aware of their violations, and continue to violate county ordinances. Under these extreme circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion because the government has a clear legal right to relief. Therefore, the trial court’s order is reversed, and this matter is remanded for entry of a temporary injunction.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ware v. Polk Cnty., 918 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…rst two prongs of the test for a temporary injunction because “[w]here the government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police power, any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irreparable harm is presumed.” Metro. Dade County v. O’Brien, 660 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also P.M. Realty, 779 So. 2d at 406 (“[W]hen one violates a city ordinance, irreparable harm is presumed.”). Here, the County is seeking an injunction to enforce an ordinance enacted under its police power, Polk County L…
-
P.M. Realty & Invs., Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 779 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ter 27 of the city code is unconstitutional. Therefore, any injury to the city caused by noncompliance is, at most, remote and speculative, and other legal remedies would be more appropriate than an injunction. In Metropolitan Dade County v. OBrien, 660 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the O’Briens established a business without complying with various county ordinances or securing necessary permits. As a result, the Third District held that “where the government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its polic…
-
Polk Cnty. v. Mitchell, 931 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Where a government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police power, the first element is established; that is, “any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irreparable harm is presumed.” Metro. Dade County v. O’Brien, 660 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also P.M. Realty & Invs., 779 So. 2d at 406; Miami-Dade County v. Fernandez, 905 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The County also established the three remaining factors. The County presented evidence that Mr. Mitche…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rich v. Ryals, 212 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1968)
- Harvey v. Wittenberg, 384 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State of Fla. Dep't of Env't Reg. v. Marieta Kaszyk, 590 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)