DANNY J. SUGGS, GARY D. SUGGS, ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 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 Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a trial court erred in denying appellants' motion to modify a temporary injunction and remanding the case to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the denial of the modification motion based on correct application of the law of the case doctrine and dismissed the appeal regarding the remand for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to modify the temporary injunction through correct application of the law of the case doctrine. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order as it was not independently reviewable under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[1] Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review non-final orders denying a motion to modify a temporary injunction.
[2] Orders denying a motion to modify a temporary injunction are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, unless the issue is purely a matter of law, in which case review is de n…
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“We review such orders using an abuse of discretion standard, except when the issue resolved by the trial court is purely a matter of law. If the issue is purely one of law, review is de novo.”
Establishes the standard of review for non-final orders denying injunction modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case had been before the appellate court on multiple prior occasions. The trial court issued a single order that denied appellants' motion to mod…
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 Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
This case in various iterations has been before this court on a number of occasions in the past. The trial court in the current controversy issued a single order that, first, denied the appellants’ motion to modify a temporary injunction; and second, remanded the case to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for an evidentiary hearing.
We have jurisdiction to review the non-final order denying the motion to modify the temporary injunction pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 We review such orders using an abuse of discretion standard, except when the issue resolved by the trial court is purely a matter of law. If the issue is purely one of law, review is de novo. See Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7, 11 (Fla.2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 958, 121 S.Ct. 1487, 149 L.Ed.2d 374 (2001); Di-Christopher v. Board of County Comm’rs, 908 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In the present case we have reviewed the issue presented de novo and find no error. The trial court’s application of the “law of the case” doctrine was correct. See Johnson v. Globe Data Sys., 785 So. 2d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The appellants also seek to have this court review whether the remand by the trial court to the District for an evidentiary hearing was erroneous. We decline to do so. We may only review such non-final orders as are specifically enumerated in rule 9.130, or which may be reviewable by an extraordinary writ pursuant to rule 9.100. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review by non-final appeal that part of the order that remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before the District. See Faulk v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 798 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The procedural limitations imposed by the rules do not permit review of “tag along” orders contained within reviewable non-final orders. See RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the modification of the injunction, and dismiss the appeal with respect to the remand for evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . That rule allows district courts of appeal to review non-final orders that “grant, continue, modify, deny, or dissolve injunctions, or refuse to modify or dissolve injunctions.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Timeshares Direct, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ble by an extraordinary writ pursuant to rule 9.100. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review by non-final appeal, that part of the summary final judgment that dismissed Wyndham’s claim for FDUTPA damages. See Suggs v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 953 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Faulk v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 798 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The procedural limitations imposed by the rules do not permit review of “tag along” orders containe…
-
Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating, 110 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…(noting trial court’s ruling on temporary injunction is clothed in presumption of correctness). To the extent a trial court’s ruling on a temporary injunction pertains to a purely legal matter, review is de novo. Suggs v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 953 So. 2d 699, 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Despite the sound discretion enjoyed by the trial court, a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted sparingly and only after the moving party establishes the following criteria: “(1) the likelihood of…
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 171 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…tent, substantial evidence. Charlotte Cnty. v. Vetter, 863 So. 2d 465, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). However, when its rulings pertain to purely legal matters, review is de novo. Avalon Legal, 110 So. 3d at 80 (citing Suggs v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgrnt. Dist., 953 So. 2d 699, 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Four elements are generally required for a temporary injunction: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (3) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; and (4) th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rev. Dr. James Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2000)
- RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- DiCHRISTOPHER v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 908 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Giokas v. State, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Menthia Faulk v. AIR Prods. & Chems., Inc., 798 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Hardin v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, 532 U.S. 958 (U.S. 2001)
- Bannister v. United States, 532 U.S. 958 (U.S. 2001)
- Johnson v. Globe Data Sys., 785 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)