HAROLD GENE WEEKLEY AND THERESA D. WEEKLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PACE ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES, INC., 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 appellate court reversed a lower court's dismissal of a count seeking injunctive relief for property flooding. The court found the dismissed count sufficiently alleged the elements required for injunctive relief, including irreparable injury and unreasonable harm from altered water flow.
Yes, the dismissed count contained sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court found that the allegations met the requirements for irreparable injury, a clear legal right, lack of an adequate remedy at law, and that the injunction would not be contrary to public interest.
[1] A cause of action for injunctive relief requires allegations of irreparable injury, a clear legal right, lack of an adequate remedy at law, and that the injunction would…
[2] Allegations of unreasonably harmful interference with the natural flow of surface storm water due to property improvements are legally sufficient to state a cause of acti…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To state a cause of action for in-junctive relief, a plaintiff must allege ultimate facts which, if true, would establish (1) irreparable injury (that is, injury which cannot be cured by money damages), (2) a clear legal right, (3) lack of an adequate remedy at law and (4) that the requested injunction would not be contrary to the interest of the public generally.”
This quote outlines the legal standard for stating a cause of action for injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants' property was allegedly being flooded due to improvements made by appellee to its adjacent property. Appellants sought an injunction to pre…
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.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing for failure to state a cause of action one count, which sought injunctive relief to prevent further flooding of appellants’ property, of a multi-count complaint. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). We conclude that the dismissed count contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for injunctive relief. Accordingly, we reverse.
To state a cause of action for in-junctive relief, a plaintiff must allege ultimate facts which, if true, would establish (1) irreparable injury (that is, injury which cannot be cured by money damages), (2) a clear legal right, (3) lack of an adequate remedy at law and (4) that the requested injunction would not be contrary to the interest of the public generally. E.g., Florida Fern Growers Ass’n v. Concerned Citizens of Putnam, County, 616 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The dismissed count includes allegations sufficient to satisfy these requirements. It also includes an allegation to the effect that the improvements made by appellee to its property have resulted in interference with the natural flow of surface storm water which is unreasonably harmful to appellants. See Westland Skating Center, Inc. v. Gus Machado Buick, Inc., 542 So. 2d 959 (Fla.1989) (possessor of land legally privileged to make reasonable use of land even if flow of surface water is altered by improvements, resulting in some harm to others; however, unreasonably harmful interference with flow of surface water is actionable). Such allegations are legally sufficient to state a cause of action for injunctive relief. Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the count which is the subject of this appeal. Whether appellants will be able to prove their allegations is, of course, a question for another day.
The order dismissing amended count II of appellants’ complaint is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…which cannot be cured by money damages), (2) a clear legal right, (3) lack of an adequate remedy at law and (4) that the requested injunction would not be contrary to the interest of the public generally.” Weekley v. Pace Assembly Ministries, Inc., 671 So. 2d 220, 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also Fayad v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1244, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The trial court concluded that “the violations of the settlement agreement in Count I necessarily have been occurring for approximately thirty…
-
In re Est. OF Amos G. Huls v. Flenser, 732 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…tion against the appellants to preclude any cause of action they, as trust beneficiaries, may have against Flesner, as trustee, or the insurance company who issued the aforementioned annuities. See Weekley v. Pace As [*1208] sembly Ministries, Inc., 671 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(elements necessary to state a cause of action for injunctive relief). We therefore reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Fern Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Concerned Citizens OF Putnam Cnty., 616 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Westland Skating Ctr., Inc. v. GUS MacHado Buick, Inc., 542 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1989)