FRANK X. MCCAHILL, APPELLANT,
v.
BRAISHFIELD ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC., 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 trial court properly denied the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
Braishfield obtained a temporary injunction against McCahill for violating a noncompete agreement. McCahill later sought to dissolve the injunction bu…
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 Motion To Dissolve Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Frank X. McCahill (“McCahill”) appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order denying his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The injunction was entered in favor of Bra-ishfield Associates, Inc., d/b/a Braishfield of Florida, Inc. (“Braishfield”). We affirm.
Braishfield sought a temporary injunction against McCahill to enjoin him from violating the terms of a noncompete agreement. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, at which both parties presented the testimony of witnesses, as well as other evidence, the trial court entered an order granting the motion for temporary injunction. McCahill did not appeal this order of the trial court.
McCahill later sought to dissolve the temporary injunction. At the hearing on his motion to dissolve, McCahill testified, but he presented no evidence to show a change in conditions which would justify dissolving the injunction, even though he had the burden of proof. Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
We conclude that the trial court properly denied McCahill’s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction because the arguments raised by McCahill either were raised or could have been raised in the contested hearing regarding Braishfield’s motion for temporary injunction or in a direct appeal from the order granting the motion for temporary injunction. See Miller v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088, 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Shadow Lakes Woods, Inc. v. Schneider, 414 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). McCahill’s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, as well as his appeal from the trial court’s order denying the motion to dissolve, constitute “an improper attempt ... to evade a court order and gain retrial of the issues without a timely motion for new trial or appeal.” Shadow Lakes Woods, 414 So. 2d at 4.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., Inc., 693 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…on it was incumbent upon him to prove some change of circumstance that would have justified the dissolution or modification of the injunction. Spaulding v. Estate of Frey, 666 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); McCahill v. Braishfield Associates, Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Miller v. Jacobs and Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because the trial judge was not presented with any such proof, we cannot say that he abused his discretion by, in effect, simply declining to revisit his i…
-
Christine Thomas, M.D. v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…y injunction entered after notice and a hearing, the moving party must establish that a change in conditions justifies the dissolution. Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); McCahill v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). If the matters raised in the motion to dissolve either were raised or could have been raised during the contested hearing to determine the initial request for the injunction, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denyin…
-
Pecora v. Pecora, 697 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…lve. A motion to dissolve must be based on evidence of a change in conditions occurring after entry of the temporary injunction with notice. Spaulding v. Estate of Frey, 666 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), McCahill v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc., 661 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Miller v. Jacobs and Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This being the law of this district, a temporary injunction hearing after notice must be conducted with sufficient advance warning, opportunity to be heard…
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
- Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Shadow Lakes Woods, Inc. v. Schneider, 414 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Brent C. Miller, Charles M. Rand, & Miller & Rand, P.A. v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A., 639 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)